An interesting read

by lydian Sat 10 Nov 2012, 4:47 pm

Looking at the character displayed by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in embracing winning or losing.

http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2012/11/9/3605420/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic

L.

by The Special Juan Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm

Awful article that's really biased. The author states that he's/she's a massive Nadal fan before kicking Federer and Djokovic repeatedly. Was it a BBC article? Wink

by bogbrush Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:20 pm

She seems a bit confused over Federer, moaning like mad then turning soft toward him.

She obviously loves Nadal, which is nice but hardly conducive to good journalism. A bit fangirly. She doesn't mention the time wasting, psyche out stuff does she? I started to think it might be wooffie in disguise.

Clearly hates Djokovic, although the examples she cites don't reflect we'll on him to be honest.

by User 774433 Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:20 pm

Cracking article. Wink

Lol it's very biased, but we've seen many Federer fans try to do the same against Nadal, no?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:23 pm

Fans are supposed to be biased, journalists aren't, no?

(Why do we have to speak like Nadal? Surely we are English, no?)

by User 774433 Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:28 pm

For sure, we have to try our best in every moment to talk like Rafa, no?

As for your first point: NO.
Journalists can be as biased as they like while writing opinion pieces, but it has to be well explained.

If it's a news report or something, then yes they shouldn't' be biased.

by The Special Juan Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:32 pm

Depends who the author is writing for. I expect a piece on the BBC/Sky/Newspaper (unless it's someone's column) to be unbiased but it's up to people to write what they want on the internet. Every player has something people can use against them; it's no surprise. In the case of that article though, there's no attempt to even mention the good things.

by bogbrush Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:42 pm

I think it's ok in this case, she makes clear she's a fangirl.

The only mistake is then to treat her piece as journalism rather than a wordy piece from wooffiesrafaramblings (no discredit to wooffie, she's eminently honest about the purpose of her blog).

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:43 pm

That link doesn't read so much as an opinion piece as a poor attempt at pseudo-psychology by someone who doesn't understand the subject. It's a fan-girl article disguising itself as journalism.

by lydian Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:46 pm

Lol, I didn't say it was well written...just interesting!

This one is more so... http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/11/fifth-wheel/40063/#.UJ6OknwgGK0
Discussing the importance of WTF.

by lags72 Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:49 pm

The author writes well, and has a flowing style of prose - even if at times she appears to have swallowed a dictionary.

I have no problem at all with anyone producing a glowing eulogy of their favourite player (although I agree, it quickly becomes way more fan-girly than objectively journalistic) ; but when it's done with the underlying motive of denigrating other fellow players by the use of highly selective quotes and historical evidence, then the content itself will always be tainted.

She begins by implying that we are about to learn something deep and meaningful about character and emotion. But by the end I was left with the distinct feeling that she could have saved herself a lot of time & effort with something more simple..... perhaps something along the lines of :
I think Nadal is truly wonderful, and even when he loses he's the best ; but as for those Federer and Djokovic guys, they really are dodgy you know, with personalities and behaviour so flawed that anyone who actually likes them must be a bit of an oddball themselves .....

by lydian Sat 10 Nov 2012, 5:54 pm

Yep lags, especially Djokovic. Lord knows why she went on to highlight Novak's coach doing a humping motion on a car other than to denigrate his team, and hence the guy himself. Given the evidence is patchy and selective I would say it wasn't well written in terms of balance but the article kind of is what it is and she is a self-proclaimed Nadal fan. She once wrote this about Nadal too...

http://archive.mensjournal.com/nadal-the-quiet-fire

When it comes to more journalistic and balanced writing style I much prefer reading Tignor, e.g. as in the link in my reply above, but it's good to read some visual tennis bubblegum from time to time - doesn't always have to be serious or balanced hey, would be pretty boring if everything was written that way.

by Guest Sat 10 Nov 2012, 6:21 pm

Is that Woofie in disguise?

That can be the only explanation.

by User 774433 Sat 10 Nov 2012, 6:26 pm

The Special Juan wrote: In the case of that article though, there's no attempt to even mention the good things.

That's not true actually.
In the article she states:
-Djokovic is a good loser
-Federer is a good winner

by Haddie-nuff Sat 10 Nov 2012, 6:32 pm

Well I think it was wonderful.. but then you would expect me to wouldnt you.. a bit brutal on Fed and Novak.. (though I have to agree with some of it)
She said all those things I wanted to but wouldn´t dare to especially on this forum Whistle

Thanks for posting it Lydian some of us enjoyed it Wink

by lags72 Sat 10 Nov 2012, 6:36 pm

lydian - really enjoyed the other piece, the one on the WTF linked in your 5.46 post.

It's an excellent look at the conundrum that is the WTF : an event that is without doubt immensely popular with both players and the live audience ..... yet which perhaps still lacks a certain indefinable something by way of profile / image. But ultimately, I'm not sure how much that matters.

Some of the comments that appear below the article are very interesting, and having thoroughly enjoyed my own visit to the WTF at the 02, I can relate in particular to these :

"The atmosphere is truly amazing and, far more than at Wimbledon, you have to be there to appreicate it. It creates a terrific buzz around the players themselves not the murmured reverence for the Centre Court. At Wimbledon even on the opening day when the defending champ walks out - which is not a moment I would miss for the world - half the CC is empty. The O2 is 80-90% full when the players come on to court and for Roger and Rafa's match last year it was 101% full. Spine-tingling".

and .....
"Each and every player at the WTF has claimed numerous times that the WTF is extremely important to them. I have never heard anyone say how much they dream of playing Indian Wells, Miami or another masters event the way they talk about the WTF".

by The Special Juan Sat 10 Nov 2012, 6:49 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
The Special Juan wrote: In the case of that article though, there's no attempt to even mention the good things.
That's not true actually.
In the article she states:
-Djokovic is a good loser
-Federer is a good winner

In all honesty, I did give up on it after the first paragraph or 2 of the section on Federer.

by LuvSports! Sat 10 Nov 2012, 8:09 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Journalists can be as biased as they like while writing opinion pieces, but it has to be well explained.

Don't agree with that at all, in fact I have been told the complete opposite.

by socal1976 Sat 10 Nov 2012, 9:27 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fans are supposed to be biased, journalists aren't, no?

(Why do we have to speak like Nadal? Surely we are English, no?)

I am not English, although I like greasy breakfasts, beer and fish chips.

Didn't like the article, but a columnist is paid to have an opinion just seems like a bit selective and pro-Nadal. No worries Novak and his fans are too busy enjoying the reign of King Novak the Great as world #1 to care much for her opinion.

by Haddie-nuff Sat 10 Nov 2012, 9:45 pm

"You say it best when you say nothing at all" music

:

by lydian Sat 10 Nov 2012, 10:14 pm

King Novak the Great.....haha

The Serbian Sovereign...

by Haddie-nuff Sun 11 Nov 2012, 7:23 am

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Fans are supposed to be biased, journalists aren't, no?

(Why do we have to speak like Nadal? Surely we are English, no?)

I am not English, although I like greasy breakfasts, beer and fish chips.

Didn't like the article, but a columnist is paid to have an opinion just seems like a bit selective and pro-Nadal. No worries Novak and his fans are too busy enjoying the reign of King Novak the Great as world #1 to care much for her opinion.

Obviously still on the whisky laughing

King Novak the Great tsk picard

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 11 Nov 2012, 8:55 am

"Character is, in other words, an internal compass with distinctly visible effects that become especially pronounced in a sport that is a zero sum, reactive encounter, in which each player seeks to force the other back behind the baseline"

Can anybody explain what this overexcited lady is talking about?

The impression is she has followed tennis only in the last couple of years to be generous........

I prefer Wooffie to the writer, both as a journalist and as a woman. That says it all...... Smile

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 11 Nov 2012, 9:08 am

"I liked Nadal for biting his trophies instead of kissing them" picard

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 11 Nov 2012, 9:19 am

"By 2008, Djokovic was No. 3 in the world. At the U.S. Open, he beat Tommy Robredo in the Round of 16, interrupting their five-set contest repeatedly to call the trainer for ailments involving his stomach, ankle, hip and several other body parts and organs. During a press conference after the match, I suggested to the visibly disgusted Robredo that it seemed as if he didn’t trust that Djokovic had actually been injured."

Here is where I really miss Tenez and the lengthy MTO debates. This lady is really shameless......

by bogbrush Sun 11 Nov 2012, 9:21 am

It does appear she has come only recently to the sport. What an embarrassing set of comments for her to make.

It looks like you're mining it for more gems, a search likely to be fruitful.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 11 Nov 2012, 9:38 am

Yeah I am loving it 100%.

by hawkeye Sun 11 Nov 2012, 10:20 am

A great read! So nice to see some intelligent writing about tennis with reference to what for me at least has made the last few years so interesting to watch.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:"Character is, in other words, an internal compass with distinctly visible effects that become especially pronounced in a sport that is a zero sum, reactive encounter, in which each player seeks to force the other back behind the baseline"

Can anybody explain what this overexcited lady is talking about?

The full quote is

Character is, in other words, an internal compass with distinctly visible effects that become especially pronounced in a sport that is a zero sum, reactive encounter, in which each player seeks to force the other back behind the baseline, to get him on the run, make him lunge, scramble, cede the angles, and, in the process, confound him, make him miss, make him look foolish, dominate him, break his will. Tennis is, in other words, a gloriously savage pas de deux in which, by the end of a hard-fought match, players are driven so relentlessly that their defenses are decimated. Character is what remains when that match ends. It is the unwitting residue of competition.

To put it very simply. In a sport where the aim is to destroy your opponent and with the stakes set extremely high players are forced into laying down their defenses and revealing something of their true character to us the viewer.

The author then picks out a few of the most emotionally charged matches between the top three players to illustrate how their characters are reviled. These are all matches that most here on 606v2 are familiar with so there's no manipulation or sleight of hand in her assessment. If some accuse her of being a "Nadal fan" it's something she's admitted and the article is her explaining why.

Federer is pompous is well aware of how good he is, hates to lose but is a gracious winner. Djokovic's mum did tell him he "is the child of god". He can be a very gracious loser but I'm sure I wasn't the only one shocked at the reported Madrid celebrations and that truly dreadful pose with Tipsarvaric. Nadal does have a philosophical way of understanding loss and is a gracious winner. In sport you don't have to be gracious as a winner or after a loss. In fact as the author implies in that first quote true character is revealed so when we see such behavior it is to be admired.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 11 Nov 2012, 10:52 am

hawkeye wrote:A great read! So nice to see some intelligent writing about tennis with reference to what for me at least has made the last few years so interesting to watch.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:"Character is, in other words, an internal compass with distinctly visible effects that become especially pronounced in a sport that is a zero sum, reactive encounter, in which each player seeks to force the other back behind the baseline"

Can anybody explain what this overexcited lady is talking about?

The full quote is

Character is, in other words, an internal compass with distinctly visible effects that become especially pronounced in a sport that is a zero sum, reactive encounter, in which each player seeks to force the other back behind the baseline, to get him on the run, make him lunge, scramble, cede the angles, and, in the process, confound him, make him miss, make him look foolish, dominate him, break his will. Tennis is, in other words, a gloriously savage pas de deux in which, by the end of a hard-fought match, players are driven so relentlessly that their defenses are decimated. Character is what remains when that match ends. It is the unwitting residue of competition.

To put it very simply. In a sport where the aim is to destroy your opponent and with the stakes set extremely high players are forced into laying down their defenses and revealing something of their true character to us the viewer.

The author then picks out a few of the most emotionally charged matches between the top three players to illustrate how their characters are reviled. These are all matches that most here on 606v2 are familiar with so there's no manipulation or sleight of hand in her assessment. If some accuse her of being a "Nadal fan" it's something she's admitted and the article is her explaining why.

Federer is pompous is well aware of how good he is, hates to lose but is a gracious winner. Djokovic's mum did tell him he "is the child of god". He can be a very gracious loser but I'm sure I wasn't the only one shocked at the reported Madrid celebrations and that truly dreadful pose with Tipsarvaric. Nadal does have a philosophical way of understanding loss and is a gracious winner. In sport you don't have to be gracious as a winner or after a loss. In fact as the author implies in that first quote true character is revealed so when we see such behavior it is to be admired.

Thanks for your help Hawky, now is all clear....... Wink

The point I would make regarding to the whole gracious/ungracious debate is that, yes Nadal is usually very gracious before and after the match (i.e. when it doesn't matter).

On the contrary, during the matches he can get very nasty, by complaining to the umpire for trivial reasons, by displaying aggressive attitudes towards his opponents (the aberrant Rosol case for example) and in general by adopting all sort of unsportmanlike conducts to disturb his opponents, that here and in other forum have been debated at nouseam.

If those aren't currently object of debate, it doesn't certainly mean Nadal has improved or remedied his actions in any sort of way.

Federer and Djokovic are, instead, both examples of impeccable behaviour during their matches, i.e. when it matters, when, using to the coloured language of the writer "players are driven so relentlessly that their defenses are decimated".

by hawkeye Sun 11 Nov 2012, 11:12 am

Jeremy Kyle

Well IMHO Nadal, Federer and Djokovic all behave very professionally during their matches. They are all human but I find it difficult to think of an occasion when I could call any of them out for poor behaviour or bad sportsmanship during a match. Maybe you just dislike Nadal?

The article is talking more about how these three great players deal with the results of competition. For example she contrasts Djokovic's reaction to winning that brutal AO final to Nadal's reaction to winning the equally brutal AO semi. Neither player did anything "wrong" but their reactions certainly reveal very different characters and perhaps their different views of competition.

by lags72 Sun 11 Nov 2012, 11:26 am

I suppose apart from various misdemeanours such as ranting at the umpire for no justifiable reason ; constantly flouting the time-between-points rule and thus keeping opponents waiting ; suddenly deciding to tape his fingers just as a match is ready to begin (ie. rather than in the locker room) ; shouldering an opponent at changeover ; requesting MTO's at highly dubious moments ...... then yes Rafa is indeed immaculately behaved.

Great champion ? Yes, no question.

Role model for on-court sportsmanlike conduct ? Methinks not.

by User 774433 Sun 11 Nov 2012, 11:44 am

Personally I agree with the article thumbsup

Of course others may think differently, and they are entitled to that.

by Haddie-nuff Sun 11 Nov 2012, 11:48 am

O Lydian what a hornets nest you have stirred up... out come the Rafa haters
Had this article been about the Lord Almighty notworthy

we wouldn´t have a word of complaint... of course not I hear you say... Mr Smugly is so squeeky clean..and so is the King of Serbia
It was a good article and I dont care if I am a Nadal fan.
Well Rafa at least you dont smash your rackets, throw water bottles at ball giirls and get fined for swearing at the umpire...Bounce the ball twenty times before you serve and tear your shirt off when you win.. BUT hey all adds to the fun doesnt it.???

Hey Lydian find an article telling us how wonderful Federer is and then see how many you get disagree... (Nadal fans wouldn´t dare)

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 11 Nov 2012, 11:53 am

I don't consider myself a Rafa hater by any means, but the artcile was a load of pseudo-psychological tosh, which failed to consider any of the 3 players in a balanced manner.

by Haddie-nuff Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:02 pm

Yep Tosh it was to you JM ... but I agreed with 99% of it. There has been plenty of pseudo-psychological tosh spoken of Federer over the years as there was about Sampras and there will be much more written about other players yet to come.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:24 pm

Looks like this woman is such a morbid Nadal fan girl to put Wooffie herself into shame.

Check out this other Nadal hagiography that she wrote: further food for thoughts (or is it for laughter?)

http://www.nadalnews.com/2009/05/24/the-quiet-fire/

by bogbrush Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:28 pm

OMG I suspect she gets *satisfaction* writing these 'articles'.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:32 pm

Amongst many other (there's also a touching anecdotal evidence of the author playing table tennis with Nadal and Lopez) , the following gem is my favourite:

"There are many things to like about Nadal, among them that [b]he bites his newly acquired trophies rather than kissing them, that he never throws his racket in anger, and that, when his shirt gets so sweat-soaked that he needs to change it during a match, he does so sitting down, ignoring the ensuing wolf whistles instead of abetting them. These particulars may seem insignificant and would be, if they didn’t reflect the larger truth that he is not, and has never been, your classic spoiled narcissistic athlete"

Incredible she did consider it was a possibillity!

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:33 pm

bogbrush wrote:OMG I suspect she gets *satisfaction* writing these 'articles'.

by lags72 Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:38 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:Yep Tosh it was to you JM ... but I agreed with 99% of it. There has been plenty of pseudo-psychological tosh spoken of Federer over the years as there was about Sampras and there will be much more written about other players yet to come.

H-n : For me, and perhaps many others, the problem here is not that the article is a homage to Rafa (that's fine in itself) BUT that it is accompanied by unbalanced negativity targetted directly at two of his finest peers ; so much so that one could be forgiven for thinking that this was the primary objective.

I normally wouldn't quote my own words but wonder whether you see any merit in these comments I posted earlier :

I have no problem at all with anyone producing a glowing eulogy of their favourite player (although I agree, it quickly becomes way more fan-girly than objectively journalistic) ; but when it's done with the underlying motive of denigrating other fellow players by the use of highly selective quotes and historical evidence, then the content itself will always be tainted.

by User 774433 Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:40 pm

Lags, you are a fine poster thumbsup

It was a biased article (imo) with cherry picking (imo), but I agreed with a lot of it.
It's a shame she couldn't give a more balanced picture though, so it's not as biased as it is

by Haddie-nuff Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:42 pm

mmmmmm but would you honestly go looking for articles like this, read them, criticise and ridicule them if they were about anyone but Nadal.

Its the thing that grabs me most, the real "hatred" is not for Nadal but for the fan base that he seems to attract mostly young women, who some I would agree may not have the best tennis knowledge in the world,( though you cannot say that about Wooffie or her forum friends they are very knowledgeable tennis lovers who just happen to be Nadal followers.)

Federer and Djokovic do not have this kind of fan base (albeit plenty of fans) but not in the same way that Nadal.. and indeed the Spanish boys do. I can find no logic in the extremes of emotion that Nadal seems to evoke in tennis enthusiasts. The love/hate for a tennis player whose ability and achievements cannot be denied, I have never witnessed with any other player, in all my years of watching the sport. Like yes or not, yes which has been the norm.. but if only for this alone Nadal is unique so what is it about this young man that stirs up such controversey amongst tennis lovers ???

by Haddie-nuff Sun 11 Nov 2012, 12:51 pm

lags72 wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:Yep Tosh it was to you JM ... but I agreed with 99% of it. There has been plenty of pseudo-psychological tosh spoken of Federer over the years as there was about Sampras and there will be much more written about other players yet to come.

H-n : For me, and perhaps many others, the problem here is not that the article is a homage to Rafa (that's fine in itself) BUT that it is accompanied by unbalanced negativity targetted directly at two of his finest peers ; so much so that one could be forgiven for thinking that this was the primary objective.

I normally wouldn't quote my own words but wonder whether you see any merit in these comments I posted earlier :

I have no problem at all with anyone producing a glowing eulogy of their favourite player (although I agree, it quickly becomes way more fan-girly than objectively journalistic) ; but when it's done with the underlying motive of denigrating other fellow players by the use of highly selective quotes and historical evidence, then the content itself will always be tainted.

Lags
I think you would well remember some of my heated debates with Tenez and NITB was on the very subject of the denigration of ANY player.,. no matter whether I like that player or no.. The answer to your question is no I do not agree with that. However to write about some facts or incidences which have occurred cannot be classed as denegrating a player. True its obvious she unashamedly a fan girl.. and her enthusiastic praise may well be seen as going OTT:

by hawkeye Sun 11 Nov 2012, 2:11 pm

It's interesting that despite being one of the best tennis players ever anyone who writes anything positive about Nadal is often accused of doing so because he's cute. I think I've said before IMO being "cute" is not necessarily an asset for a sports star especially if it's combined like it is with Rafa with a personality that isn't all out macho. Ha ha! Best if your a male not to admit to being a fan. People might get the wrong idea.

As for the article. Of course it was written by a fan. But I found it interesting as it at least attempted to explain the irrational reasons any of us may have for wanting one particular multi millionaire sport star to win rather than another.

For those that say it was less than flattering in it's description of Federer and Djokovic. I have to say I found the descriptions fair. For example Federer is pompous. Some may see this as a negative thing but I have to admit I like it. Somehow he can get away with it. Similarly Djokovics macho, over the top celebrations are part of his personality. Like them or loath them. Admit it or not but I suspect things like this play a part in who people chose to support or not.

by LuvSports! Sun 11 Nov 2012, 2:22 pm

hawkeye does nadal have any flaws at all?

by Haddie-nuff Sun 11 Nov 2012, 2:26 pm

Yes of course he has.. he has dodgy knees Whistle

by LuvSports! Sun 11 Nov 2012, 2:58 pm

a sincere answer please

by Haddie-nuff Sun 11 Nov 2012, 3:33 pm

Because he is a genuinely nice person he is viewed with suspicion and considered to be insincere.. so if you want to call that a flaw yes. he has.
Sad fact of life. But love him or no what you see is what you get.
But even his fans, unlike those of others, do not believe he walks on water he is first and foremost a human being that happens to play tennis for a living..

by LuvSports! Sun 11 Nov 2012, 3:57 pm

I'm sorry but your first line is just a load of drivel.

I think people don't warm to him as much for his on court demeanor, which at times is riddled with gamesmanship.
Im a feds fan and openly admit his flaws such as I believe at times feds is arrogant, churlish and a bit tactless with some of his comments.

Are you willing to say specifically what nadal's flaws are, because it seems to me you think he is ... flawless.

by Haddie-nuff Sun 11 Nov 2012, 4:08 pm

Its a load of drivel because you dont agree with it. so dont be so rude. That´s your opinion and I dont agree with you ok ??
Im sure the King of Spain would not entertain him at the Palace as oten as he does neither would he spend time with him in Mallorca if it were not the case but then thats what I mean you see .. nobody is allowed to be nice are they if they are then there has to be something wrong with him. Gamesmanship.. dont single Nadal out on that score.. all players have ways of using gamesmanship some more obvious than others.
Fed is not arrogant at times.. Fed is arrogant all the time.
Of course he has flaws he is a human being for God´s sake.. taking too much time between serves .. but time him now he has improved and you will find there are others that are equally as bad.. Jumping up and down at the net.. but then I notice Fed did that yesterday.... so there you go And it may come as a surprise to you to know that Andy Murray, Delpotro and even Federer himself have said how much they have missed him in his absence.. so he must be pretty bad eh???

by Sponsored content