Roger doesn't do himself justice in the press conference

Roger has never been one to be gracious in defeat, some of his post match press conferences often sound like things Connors might have said at his most snide. When Roger was winning everything and fans, players, and adversaries were fawning all over him he was a great sport. But since he started losing more often he hasn't won too many sportsmanship awards. Often he disrespects the victor in his post match press conference. Here is another example:

Asked about the quite remarkable forehand winner Djokovic hit to save match point, Federer reckoned the Serb did not look at that point like someone "who believes much anymore in winning. 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."

Djokovic was honest enough to admit the shot was a gamble – but Federer was reluctant to give him credit even for that courage in a crisis, preferring to regard it as desperate.

"Confidence? Are you kidding me?" he said when it was put to him the cross-court forehand off his first serve – described by John McEnroe as "one of the all-time great shots" – was either a function of luck or confidence.

"I mean, please. Some players grow up and play like that – being down 5-2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots. I never played that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. For me, this is very hard to understand. How can you play a shot like that on match point? Maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/sep/11/us-open-2011-federer-djokovic


No one is perfect and Roger has a lot of good qualities, being a gracious loser is not one of them. It is a shame he has to cheapen such a great match and a classic with such commentary but it isn't the first time. His quote about Melzer after his loss in Madrid was really mind boggling. He explained that one of the reasons he lost was because his opponent shanked so many balls that went in.

I didn't see it the way you are seeing it. Fed admitted?Djoko's courafe but the forehand from djoko was a lucky one. djoko does not have a prob with that. What is your problem?
\Your man is in the finals and win it as well because be sure that nadal is not going to win a set even leave match points.

so cherish the oment and leave fed alone.

Wow, I would give Roger the benefit of the doubt but this isn't the first time he has disrespected his opponent in a post loss interview. This isn't some duffer at the club swinging with his eyes closed and getting lucky this is the best returner in the world taking a calculated risk.

Roger is still a great player and overrall a good guy but he does this kind of thing in press conferences. I have no problem with him voicing his opinion but it isn't graceful and it isn't particularly good sportsmanship.

socal1976 wrote: I have no problem with him voicing his opinion but it isn't graceful and it isn't particularly good sportsmanship.

Which is why, though I have long admired Federer's phenomenal talent and athleticism, I could never warm to him as a human being.

It grates me as well. Why didn't he just admit that he choked after that. He still got match point and should have been mentally stronger. What a waste. he should look back at the match and kick himself for missing a great chance after leading two sets up. He should have instead explained why his level dropped in the 3rd set. It was so reminecent of the Tsonga match at Wimbledon.

why Roger has to be an epitome of righteousness. Afetr getting beaten by Roger, Tsonga said that he was not 100%, he was not serving well blahblah. I did not see any post coming on that. All players do that and I dont see Roger being disrespectful to Nole's efforts and nieither does Nole. So why you?

Djokovics shot at match point down was a gamble. He got lucky.

I'd guess/estimate the chances of that shot going in were something like 20% (I think thats a very generous estimate). So 4 times out of 5 Djokovic would have missed and the match would have had a very different ending. Everyone would have been talking about the end of Djokovics run and how great Federer is. They would also perhaps be calling Djokovic crazy (or stupid) to play such a shot!

Tactically Federer (and Nadal) just don't play like that. Its great watching them play important points. They handle them with such care. Its not that they don't play aggresive because they do. Its just that they work a point so that they take minimum risk when doing so. "Slapping shots" may win a few important points but it will never accumulate as many as a more structured approach.

Like him or not Federer understands tennis. He would make a great coach or commentator. Djokovic is a great player but he played that match point like a much lower ranked player with nothing to lose. Federer could be "gracious" and bland but I much prefere some honest, intellegent insight into the game.

socal1976 wrote:Wow, I would give Roger the benefit of the doubt but this isn't the first time he has disrespected his opponent in a post loss interview. This isn't some duffer at the club swinging with his eyes closed and getting lucky this is the best returner in the world taking a calculated risk.

Roger is still a great player and overrall a good guy but he does this kind of thing in press conferences. I have no problem with him voicing his opinion but it isn't graceful and it isn't particularly good sportsmanship.

This may be exaggerating a little... but Djokovic played that match point like "some duffer at the club swinging with his eyes closed and getting lucky" and not like the best returner and number one player in the world. Thats the bit that Federer didn't understand. A club player would have had a chance of winning that point against Federer if he just swung with his eyes closed. A very low chance and his only chance but still a chance. Why would the number one player take such a low percentage risk. As you say at the moment he is probably the best returner in the world. Why didn't he use or trust his skills instead of going for broke?

But he's right. Djokos return was a gamble from a man who's given up. That's no kind of skill, it's lottery, which is not decent from world's No:1.

Anyway Nadal will crush him today if he plays like he did with Andy, and he will avenge his losses from Djoko.

socal,

The shot from Djokovic was a swing and hope. To try and discredit Roger for that comment is low. Djokovic gambled and it paid off. He isn't the first to have done that in a pressure point situation during the match. The belief Djokovic showed to go for it should be credited. How many players in that situation would've gone defensive on a first serve MP down? Murray and Nadal spring to mind.

Yes it was a great shot, but look at the intent behind it though. I am going to whack it as hard back into court as I can. Did he play for the length and angle he got on it? Not at all. Either way it was the right call and he won.

Let's not base this shot though on the 'whole' performance Djokovic put in. He fought and scrapped his way back into it and at the end of the match served out perfectly. Federer just lost some focus and confidence when it mattered. Still what some would deem a 'faltering' Federer is still contesting Grand Slams at the latter stages and competing is still remarkable in itself.

Djokovic even after 2 sets down is never a beaten man until GSM is called.

Socal, give Roger a break. He had just lost the match and the emotions were raw. It is human to try to make excuses for a defeat, especially in the heat of the moment.

Roger may usually have a problem being gracious, but given the nature of his defeat and having to sit through a press conference so soon after, it is understandable if he come across a bit ungracious.

And even in the midst of his obvious disappointment, he credited Novak for a great match.

Hi, new to the forum. I agree with the last few posts and Djokovic even admitted as much. Although saying that, Djokovic had been hitting that kind of return a lot of the match though on Federer's serve out wide so I suppose the only real difference here was the power and the importance of the point that he hit that shot.

I also disagree that Federer was particularly bitter about the loss. He gave Novak his dues for his efforts in the 3rd and 4th but rightfully felt he had the match at the end. Given that he lost under similar circumstances last year I don't know what else you're expecting of him in terms of being gracious. It was a fairly interesting interview where he was typically frank and honest providing some semi profound insights.

A case of a sore losers anthem fro, Federer as usual. Djokovic took and gamble which paid off and he reminded all of us in the post match on court interview. It's not left upon Federer to tell is in the post match press conference he was lucky. It comes out as sore and paying little credit to your opponents bravery. If Federer thinks it was luck, why couldn't he attempt to luck-out an ace on the many match points himself? Losing match points last year was bad enough but doing it again this year shows mental weakness. He though Monfils was lucky for saving 5 MP's as well i think. Well surely he has to start looking closer at home instead of blaming lady luck

Henman once said that there are 2 answers in press conferences. There's the one people want to hear and there's the honest one. IMHO Federer, when he wins or loses, tends to go towards the latter. Which to some can appear ungracious, to others is just honestly expressing his viewpoint.

But since he's probabaly given about 800 post-match interviews over the years, to say "Roger has never been one to be gracious in defeat" is probably over-stating the case somewhat.

Connors, by the way, always made a point of praising an opponent after he'd beaten them. Not because he was a nice guy, but because he didn't want the opponent to be more determined to beat him next time they played.
So the press conference sort of became the psychological start of their next match.

S_A,

The match points he lost last year were on Djokovic's serve were they not? So its not like they were in his hands as much as these ones were. Djokovic hitting a return like that has nothing to do with Federer's mental strength. It was left upon Federer to tell the press what he thought in response to a question about that return. He thought it was luck, what was he supposed to do pretend otherwise? He also explained that that's not how he plays hence no attempt to luck out anything.

As far as I can tell he didn't put the entire loss down to luck and at least now he'll take even less for granted if that's even possible considering the big matches he's lost.

Socal just think this a little; Novak was happy to return the ball just past midcourt down the middle for most of the 5 sets...then suddenly he goes all out for a tough angle with a well below 50% chance of that shot being a winner, it's also not exactly nice to see these exhibition returns fly past you in such an important part of the match.

Roger has just had a horrible nightmare comeback to haunt him from this moment a year ago; losing match points in BOTH these matches is not going to sit well with anyone, especially not a player with as much pride as him..you seem to want the man to give a fake account of the match and not show his emotions in the press conference; then at the same time he apparently should show more emotions on the court, he can't win...

I generally like Roger but I am really irritated by his attitude in this conference. The whole tone of the interview seems to be that Novak just got lucky.

Even if assume that the return at 40-15 was complete fluke (which I don't believe it was), that's not why Novak won.

That shot saved match point 1. Was it luck that Federer then blew match point 2? Was it luck that Novak then won the game at deuce? Was it luck that he then went on to break Roger's next service game? Was it luck that he won sets 3 and 4 after being 2-0 down?

The simple fact is that over 5 sets, Novak played the better tennis at key moments.

I don't expect Roger to be perfect but after a career in which he has inflicted many painful losses on other players and generally still heard them compliment him on his great play, it would be nice if he could show the same courtesy.

The shot from Djokovic was a swing and hope. To try and discredit Roger for that comment is low. Djokovic gambled and it paid off. He isn't the first to have done that in a pressure point situation during the match. The belief Djokovic showed to go for it should be credited. Legendkillar

Yes I agree it should be credited Lk and that is exactly what Roger didn't do. This is what I don't get about Fed fans and their double standard. On one hand they say Novak is a grinder, he is not a great shotmaker, he just wins on defense. Then when Djokovic takes a risk and hits what Mcenroe called "one of the greatest shots of all time" now he is lucky and acting like a club player. That is what is low Legendkillar the unbelievable double standard of federer and his fans. Novak went for it and crushed a 125 mile per hour first serve. He crushed federer's serve for most of three sets after he couldn't get a break point for 2 sets, there is nothing lucky about it. When Novak plays aggressive fed fans say he should play the big points more conservative. If he grinds out wins he only wins on lungs and isn't a particularly talented shot maker.

Well it looks like fed's apologists have tied themselves into a logical pretzel made of hypocrisy. So is novak too aggressive and lucky or is he not aggressive enough.

Fed has a lengthy track record of snide comments in post loss press conferences, doesn't mean he is a bad person. But he certainly deserves criticism for a disrespecting his opponents in post match pressers.

This is what Djoko had to say after losing to Fed in the 2007 USO final :-
"I was a bit unlucky, I can say. Besides the knowledge, footwork, physical, mental strength, you need a little bit of luck, which today I didn't have."

"You know, he's (Federer) a big worker, very talented, a great player. That's why he deserves to be there where he is. But, of course, he is lucky and he gets these lines and lucky shots, I can say, because he's going for them. He's not trying to play safe. He's really being aggressive."

Davydenko, after losing to Fed in the USO 2007 semi :-
Q. What's the one thing that makes Roger Federer so tough?
NIKOLAY DAVYDENKO: Lucky. He's lucky sometimes.

Q. Is luck something just happens or is luck something that you make?
NIKOLAY DAVYDENKO: I don't know. I think Federer's always lucky.

I don't expect Roger to be perfect but after a career in which he has inflicted many painful losses on other players and generally still heard them compliment him on his great play, it would be nice if he could show the same courtesy..Murdoch

Exactly, Murdoch wholeheartedly agree. Roger got outplayed and he tried to chalk it up to luck. Novak won more total points, he won more total games and from 100th minute of that match on he was the better player. Does Roger think it was easy for Roddick to lose 3 gs finals to him, or for novak to lose 3 straight semis at the USO to him. Some of them very close matches, why are great shots lucky for Novak and not lucky for Roger?

"The harder I work, the luckier I get" - Samuel Goldwyn

socal1976 wrote:why are great shots lucky for Novak and not lucky for Roger?

Well, see my post above - according to Novak, Roger's great shots are lucky.

Except, that Novak back in 2007 said he was a great player and deserved it, much different context than these comments Julius. As for Davydenko, he has broken english and is a quirky guy, and if he said that Roger just beat him on luck then he was wrong as well. Analyze the Novak quote and the text of the Roger quote totally different tone and totally different meaning, Novak basically said that roger's aggressiveness and greatness creates some lucky breaks for him. Much more positive quote, if Roger said over and over again how great Novak was and that he got some lucky breaks no one would complain. Two different quotes totally different context.

By the way how do you explain away his quote against melzer, quote: "he shanked a lot of balls that went in", when why he lost.

Problems with fans that he only sees one side of the coin. I stated before about Tsongs'a press conf and socal had nothing to say about that as well.

Can the fed supporters answer one question for me:"Which is it, is novak too aggressive or is he too defensive"? Because according to the hypocrisy pretzel you are trying to feed us it seems that he is both a defensive grinder and a reckless lucky hacker who is too aggressive.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:why are great shots lucky for Novak and not lucky for Roger?

Well, see my post above - according to Novak, Roger's great shots are lucky.

Julius, Novak says Roger gets the luck because he is talented, plays aggressively and goes for difficult shots.

Federer on Novak yesterday: "Confidence? Are you kidding me? I mean, please. 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"

I'm not saying Fed gets it right every time, but the idea that other players always compliment him is clearly wrong. Just as the idea that Roger "has never been one to be gracious in defeat" is clearly wrong.

We are not talking about Novak here. Novak is a great player and probably deserved to win and good he won because Nadal will not win which is more important however there is no need to pick up on Fed and brandishing him as a sore loser.

Besides the knowledge, footwork, physical, mental strength, you need a little bit of luck, which today I didn't have."Novak


Exactly how is this anything like the quote we just saw from Roger. He spends several lines talking about how great Roger is and also said that Roger had some good fortune, show me the same text in Roger's quote julius? If Roger said that he got some bad breaks and that Novak's greatness created a few lucky breaks then the media wouldn't be criticizing him and neither would I.

This is such a knit picking thread to be honest and I'd have expected better from you socal. The analysis Fed made and which other posters have clearly stated is that Djokovic's shot on the first match point was a complete chancer, he thought fine, I got nothing to lose so I'll go for it. Djokovic confirmed that too.

It's far too easy to critise and complain about what Fed said but most of what he said wasn't incorrect and don't forget, this loss will hurt as much, if not more because in many ways it was definitely his to lose, he was 2 sets up after all!

Lets first see how Nadal/Djokovic deal with getting to 30 and their movement/physicality being only a pale comparison to what it used to be; sure Federer has been guilty of being grumpy and uncomplimentary when he's let the match get away from him, when you're so used to making slam finals it's not easy to get over these setbacks.. if you want fake compliments then you will have to watch Rafa and the other media's puppets..

wow wrote:We are not talking about Novak here. Novak is a great player and probably deserved to win and good he won because Nadal will not win which is more important however there is no need to pick up on Fed and brandishing him as a sore loser.

But wow that is precisely what Roger is. He has a great deal of very good qualities what he has done for the game, what he has done for charity, and I have often commended him on this on this very site. But he is a notoriously sore loser and this isn't the first or second time either. He is incredulous that he quote lost to "somone like that" what exactly does that mean he isn't some scrub, the best returner in the world took a calculated risk and blasted your first off the court. But you couldn't tell that from the text and tone of Roger's comments.

luciusmann wrote:This is such a knit picking thread to be honest and I'd have expected better from you socal. The analysis Fed made and which other posters have clearly stated is that Djokovic's shot on the first match point was a complete chancer, he thought fine, I got nothing to lose so I'll go for it. Djokovic confirmed that too.

It's far too easy to critise and complain about what Fed said but most of what he said wasn't incorrect and don't forget, this loss will hurt as much, if not more because in many ways it was definitely his to lose, he was 2 sets up after all!

TBF I wouldnt, the guy who can keep going on and on about Fognini facotr for weeks and weeks is capable of making issues about nothing.
Bad post.

It's funny how in New York and just as in Paris, the crowds were massively for Federer. Even @ RG in the final against Nadal, that crowd were not behind Nadal @ all. More curiously, if most people thought Fed was such a sore loser, I don't think he'd have the massive support he has in those crowds that he clearly possesses. I think like another poster, your mostly on your own on this socal.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Lets first see how Nadal/Djokovic deal with getting to 30 and their movement/physicality being only a pale comparison to what it used to be; sure Federer has been guilty of being grumpy and uncomplimentary when he's let the match get away from him, when you're so used to making slam finals it's not easy to get over these setbacks.. if you want fake compliments then you will have to watch Rafa and the other media's puppets..

Novak went through years of beatings at the hands of Roger and Rafa the worst quote of them Julius produced and if anything that quote is practically gushing with praise for Novak. Find an iota of respect in Roger's quote for Novak. If Novak starts saying that he lost a match because his opponent "shanked a lot of balls that went in" I guarantee you I'll tear him a new on this site. Rafa isn't even close this kind of megalomania so that is mute point from the outset.

socal - you clearly state Fed is "never" gracious in defeat. I disagree. How many matches has he lost - over a 100? Was he "never" gracious?

I also think there are many players who have been at times not gracious to Fed, or to each other, and at times Fed is less than gracious. Maybe he's more gracious to players he gets on with. Maybe he still resents Novak's mum saying "The King is dead" back in 2008. Who knows?

I just don't think it's a big deal and I certainly don't have the inclination to argue the nuances and interpretation of every sentence these guys speak as though it has some great meaning or somehow is the window into their true soul. If your mind is made up, so be it.

Your favourite player is a guy who pulls out of matches due to sore throat and fatigue...it's hardly smart to lecture a player who has played through various injuries win or lose.. I don't care when players are sore losers and neither should you, remember that actions are louder than words I think it's better not to judge what he's said so soon after a match, he will probably change his tune in a few weeks after it's out of his system...

luciusmann wrote:It's funny how in New York and just as in Paris, the crowds were massively for Federer. Even @ RG in the final against Nadal, that crowd were not behind Nadal @ all. More curiously, if most people thought Fed was such a sore loser, I don't think he'd have the massive support he has in those crowds that he clearly possesses. I think like another poster, your mostly on your own on this socal.

The crowds loved jimmy connors he was one of the biggest pricks in the history of the sport, I love jimmy connors and I know he was maybe the most hated guy in the lockeroom to ever pick up a racquet. In the immortal words of Mark twain:"Common sense ain't that common". To form my opinions I don't look at what the herd does to make up my opinion of anything.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Henman once said that there are 2 answers in press conferences. There's the one people want to hear and there's the honest one. IMHO Federer, when he wins or loses, tends to go towards the latter. Which to some can appear ungracious, to others is just honestly expressing his viewpoint.

But since he's probabaly given about 800 post-match interviews over the years, to say "Roger has never been one to be gracious in defeat" is probably over-stating the case somewhat.

This comment reflects my own view on the matter. It would also be interesting to have an assessment as to whether the selected Federer comments in the OP is representative of the overall tone of the interview.

Agreed JM and the funny thing is that like Simpleton, instead of discussing how great a come back Djokovic managed instead we have an inane thread which only attacks a player, and more shamelessly, when he's just lost. You can't just be happy with a win for Djokovic, a poster(s) have to find a reason to attack his opponent, just like simple one, says more of the posters than anything else.

JM I am sure that socal will not be interested in answering your query about retirements because he has common sense and we don't.

Completely agree with lucius.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Your favourite player is a guy who pulls out of matches due to sore throat and fatigue...it's hardly smart to lecture a player who has played through various injuries win or lose.. I don't care when players are sore losers and neither should you, remember that actions are louder than words and stop embarrassing yourself.. you're becoming like Simpleton with your dreadful posts..

JM please, I could care less about your opinion of my posts. Keep trying to change the subject from Fed's behavior, if you want to start a thread about Novak's withdrawals you are free to do so. I won't address this on my thread, you don't like the thread don't read it, don't post on it.

I give Roger credit where it is due, and I have at numerous times and when he does something like this I'll criticize him. I would do that for any player. Overral Roger is a great champ, last night I defended him when SA knocked him without cause I stood up for Roger. He is not some sort of racquet wielding swiss diety, I am sorry to burst your bubble. But overrall a great champ and a positive role model.

wow wrote:JM I am sure that socal will not be interested in answering your query about retirements because he has common sense and we don't.

Just answered it for you wow, trust me I am not frightened by JM's "logic" on this thread.

Nore Staat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Henman once said that there are 2 answers in press conferences. There's the one people want to hear and there's the honest one. IMHO Federer, when he wins or loses, tends to go towards the latter. Which to some can appear ungracious, to others is just honestly expressing his viewpoint.

But since he's probabaly given about 800 post-match interviews over the years, to say "Roger has never been one to be gracious in defeat" is probably over-stating the case somewhat.

This comment reflects my own view on the matter. It would also be interesting to have an assessment as to whether the selected Federer comments in the OP is representative of the overall tone of the interview.

Roger Federer blamed himself for letting slip a golden opportunity to reach the US Open final after a crushing five-set loss to world number one Novak Djokovic.
The 30-year-old said: "It's awkward having to explain this loss because I feel like I should be doing the other press conference. He came back, he played well. I didn't play so well at the very end. It's disappointing, but I have only myself to blame. I had it. There's no more I could do. He snaps one shot, and then the whole thing changes.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gU5uVrWLxdlEWGFFD6S5urlAldmg?docId=N0313691315733682721A

That sounds pretty gracious to me.

I completely agree with JM. I have not heard from any media person or commentators that Roger was disrespectful. I too have watched the press conference and I did not feel or see that way.

If you are free to express your opinions than others are too. Don't flap if your player is getting picked up on retirementts and there is no denial that Novak leads the stats in that area. If we are talking of gamesmanship than your player has to come out clean before you start making accusations at other players.

I have plenty of common sense and Federer is not Jimmy Connors, he isnt hated by the players in the locker room. I've never detected any arrogance in Federer which is what is so often said of Jimmy Connors.

I can imagine a large part of why Jimmy Connors got so much support was he was American so that helps him @ USO as for the other slams I don't know, I was a baby/child when he was playing. Fed isn't American and supported massively all over the place. Also, remember that Fed doesn't come across as a particularly warm person, yet he has such a huge following. I overlook that aspect of his personality/demeanor because I do feel he is a genuine man who conducts himself immensely well and that's why he has so much support in my view (as well as his great talent).

Hawkeye made some brilliant posts on this subject earlier, which explains what happened and in that context, Fed's remarks make perfect sense.

I respect your opinion Socal that you don't like Roger's brash/honest comments; not everyone has to like him as we all have different tastes, just like I never liked Sampras or Hewitt when they were on top, you can't really help who you like or dislike...you do actually post with a good tennis knowledge albeit often pretty narrow minded, you aint as bad as other posters with virtually no knowledge other than their own player.. I will edit my previous post where I was a bit harsh on you...