Tennis Planet

Official Freaking Site Of Tennis Freaking Fans Worldwide.

Federer’s “sore loser” remarks. From Wuiches. Thanks.

Posted by tennisplanet on October 27, 2010


I found this text on internet, for policy reasons can’t say where but I just want to make clear that these are not my words, and may not completely agree with them but I consider that it’s worth it to read it.

“Roger Federer’s “sore loser” remarks, as well as his left-handed compliments to Nadal describing him as a great clay courter, have been well-documented and decried. Now, we have his latest innuendos about slowing down of surfaces.

Before the US Open, Federer remarked that the fast courts at Flushing Meadows might prove to be a challenge for Rafa. He hinted that the courts were faster than the grass courts of Wimbledon, a remark not supported by Nadal or Murray.

After Nadal won, the refrain now is that all the surfaces have been slowed down.

At Stockholm recently, Roger Federer claimed that the Grand Slam was achievable because all the surfaces have been slowed down. In another interview in Stockholm, he acknowledged that he too might have benefited from the slower courts, but “it is getting a little bit too extreme” and “I am sure it helps Rafa.”

Are the surfaces being continuously slowed down?

Wimbledon had changed to rye grass in 2001, resulting in some slower pace. There is no record of any other Grand Slam surface being altered since 2003.

So, what is Roger talking about? Clearly, he is trying to discount Nadal’s achievements on the faster surfaces.

I don’t know what Roger hopes to achieve by these petty remarks. Does he seriously think that history is going to place an asterisk against Nadal’s achievements based on his allegations of surfaces being slowed down? No. He is only harming his image; the gracious image he had built up during his winning years.

Federer’s remarks are all the more difficult to stomach considering that his great rival never fails to call him the “greatest.”

As Federer’s remarks are being made in public, Nadal must be aware of them.

Sooner or later, the moment will come when Nadal will do a Voltaire. If you don’t know what I am talking about, let me tell you the story of the famous Voltaire repartee.

Voltaire was talking to a visitor who mentioned having met Albrecht von Haller, a Swiss (ah, the Swiss connection!) poet and physiologist. Voltaire immediately expressed a lot of praise for Haller, describing him as a great poet, a man of great knowledge, etc. The visitor told Voltaire that his praise was to be commended all the more as Haller always spoke disparagingly of Voltaire and his works.

Then Voltaire made his famous remark, “Perhaps we are both mistaken!””


41 Responses to “Federer’s “sore loser” remarks. From Wuiches. Thanks.”

  1. Yaz said

    Wow… you have a lot of time on your hands… lol.

  2. nelson goodman said


    • sperry said

      Responding to a classless act with a classless act isn’t useful.

    • nelson goodman said

      Just kidding!

      Seriously, I do think that Roger can be a bit too defensive/on his heels sometimes and thus come off less graciously – it’s easier to be gracious when internally you feel you’re on top. And though it’s unfortunate, I guess it’s understandable that Roger feels he needs to provide some balance given how quickly it’s gone from lop-sided “you’re the GOAT” to “he’s the GOAT.”

      Having said that, other players also feel that hard courts have slowed down (Ljubacic among others has said so).

  3. Annie said

    Roger is the most evil human being to grace our planet, indeed.

    I’ve just seen that this comes from Bleacher Report. They wouldn’t post a positive article about Federer if their lives depended on it.

    • Sir Vibhudi Aatmapudi said

      Agreed. I’d say about 90% of the writers and posters on Bleacher report tennis have chemical imbalances!

      • Jenny said

        Agreed also. It seems to me a situation of picking bones dry as far as Fed is concerned. Roger and Rafa have proved themselves as greats, and it’s clear there’s mutual respect and liking between the two.

      • chieko said

        Thanks Jenny san, well said. 😀

      • RafaFan said

        Agreed Sir V. I stopped visiting the BR site as well as tennis-x. TP does the job for me. 🙂

  4. O said

    Roger also need to stop using Nadal likenesses as punching bags and door mats.

  5. mircea said

    Bad bad Roger… always something to complain about… Have other #2’s or #1’s ever whined as much? And you that Murayy and Djokovic were drama queens… Time Roger listened to Mary J Blige

  6. chipnputt said

    The article is factually incorrect in saying nothing has changed at the Slams since 2003.

    The AO changed surfaces after the 2007 championship from Rebound Ace to Plexicushion Prestige. Rebound Ace used to get sticky in the heat and hence the change. Not sure if the new surface was slower or faster but the balls bounced more and took more spin. It was meant to favor the power baseliner.

    Also, while Wimbledon replaced its grass after 2001 to slow it down, the surface has progressively slowed over the years and gotten bouncier.

    As for the US Open — here is Bleacher Report from an article published Aug 31, 2010:

    “If you watch the US Open this year, pay special attention to whether the court takes spin more easily. If you think it does, you are not alone. It looks like the “fastest” surface in the Grand Slams has gotten slower this year. And, if so, look for better results by those players who are more at the baseline, and those who hit their strokes with the most wicked spin.”

    “We’re trying to come up with a fair field of play for the integrity of the competition,” said Mr. Curley. He said Mr. Roddick complained to him once that the courts had become too slow.”

    “Are the courts even slower today? Have they been slowed even more this year, in a second slow down effort?”

    And further down, here is a possible conclusion…” this year’s tournament has begun to show signs that the paint got another tweak this year, adding even more sand to make the courts even slower and more susceptible to spin. The best evidence came on the first day when Robin Soderling struggled to win against unranked Andreas Haider-Maurer. While Soderling was arguably not at his best and Haider-Maurer was clearly playing very good tennis, the ball seemed slower and more prone to spin”.

  7. chipnputt said

    And as for Roger lacking class and forever whining. Here is what he said about Nadal and surfaces before the US Open (from the US Open website just before this years tournament):

    “He’s obviously dominated clay now for many years, so that gave him an opportunity to win many of the French Opens, which he was able to just tear through, which has been amazing to see. Especially at his young age, it’s been very impressive,” Federer said recently. “And then it was somewhat normal to me that he was going to improve also on the faster surfaces because right off the bat he beat me in Miami. He already had signs to show that he was also a capable fast-court player.

    “And as all the courts kind of slow down — indoors, hardcourts, even grass — it’s logical that today, if you’re at the top, you can win on any surface. That’s what he’s been able to do. (He) still maybe struggles a little bit on the faster hardcourts. But, then again, he won the Australian Open already, he’s been multiple times in the semis of the US Open, so that is stuff that he does now quite comfortably.”

  8. grendel said

    “Before the US Open, Federer remarked that the fast courts at Flushing Meadows might prove to be a challenge for Rafa.” A reasonable thought, one might think, shared by just about everybody. Only trouble is, owing to the vagaries of the draw and the temperament of Mr.Murray, Nadal was not properly tested until the final. That is a pity, for, great though Nadal’s performance was, a slight doubt remains concerning its long term significance. b.t.w., Federer also remarked, when questioned as to whether Nadal could win the US, yes, of course he could. He then made his perfectly reasonable qualification.

    “At Stockholm recently, Roger Federer claimed that the Grand Slam was achievable because all the surfaces have been slowed down.” I have argued elsewhere (I simply mention this in case anyone gets a worrying sense of deja vu) that you cannot tell from the context whether Federer is referring to the last few years, or to the condition of the surfaces when the last “grand slam” was achieved, by Laver. I instinctively thought the latter, but then I suppose I would. Certain others assume the former – and they would, too, wouldn’t they?

    Meanwhile, it should also be noted that the interview was conducted in a very jokey, lighthearted way. To dig around searching for discreditable material seems somehow to miss the point pretty badly.

    “Federer’s remarks are all the more difficult to stomach considering that his great rival never fails to call him the “greatest.””
    This, I submit, is naive. Leaving aside the fact that we don’t actually know what he meant, it is certainly the case that Federer is inclined to be a little, how shall we say, reticent about Nadal’s greatness – although note that it was him who said that we have not yet seen the best of Rafa, a compliment which you may be sure Nadal understood and appreciated.

    But in general, I can’t help thinking that it is a great deal easier for the champion in waiting to be gushing over the reigning record holder – quietly confident that in time he will eclipse him – than the other way round. After all, Federer has been lauded to the skies in that exaggerated way so typical of our exciteable age of celebrity and, modest and unassuming though he undoubtedly is (off court), this is bound to have gone to his head just a bit. Some people would simply have been destroyed by it, and I find Federer’s relative immunity pretty impressive. However, before, well before he has even hung up his tennis racket there appears a rival who may well overtake him in achievements and fame. I should have thought this quite a bitter pill – Sampras, I recall, did not find the emergence so soon after his retirement of a player who threatened to surpass his exploits at all easy to stomach.

    The situation is much more wounding, really, for Federer, and it is hardly surprising if he is a little in denial. Those who are so ready to sneer at some fairly anodyne remarks could do, I suggest, with just a little bit of imagination. Meanwhile, whilst I am no longer inclined to doubt Nadal’s sincerity, there are all kinds of reasons why it is convenient for him to hail Federer as the greatest. And since he is human and not a saint, he will certainly be tempted by some of them. For instance: calling Federer the greatest takes pressure off of himself, it gives him a reputation for gentlemaniness and modesty and, sweetest of all, it will make his eventual enthronement all the more imposing. For what could be more satisfying than to become the greatest yourself by outstripping the man who had previously been the greatest?

  9. M said

    *peeks into thread*

    *ducks out again*

    • Anonymous said

      😆 😆 😆

      sorry M, I just can’t help it!

    • grendel said

      nice one.

      • Jenny said

        Grendel – are you watching Nalby v Simon? It’s on Fromsport.

      • Jenny said

        My man is on fire and has taken the first first set! Beautiful tennis, if only he
        could play like this all the time!

      • Jenny said

        Poor Gilles was shreiking in frustration and has been warned for language, I can’t blame him really, Nalby is out-witting him and slicing those balls like a knife through butter.

      • Jenny said

        Gilles not done yet, he’s broken Nalby, 5 all second set.

      • Jenny said

        Nalby is losing this match in his head, he was tetchy and bad tempered and not happy with Mourier who did nothing wrong. Infact both players gave him an ear roasting for no obvious reason. Nalby should have won in straights, had 4 chances to serve it out in sets 2 and 3, but was thwarted by the mental strength, resiliance and matchplay of Simon who is now 3 points away from victory in the third.

        Simon through! What can I say, he thoroughly deserved it. It was a great match though. Aw David, so talented, gift wrapping the balls in the 2nd and third set. It’s gut wrenching from a fan’s perspective, whatever are we going to do with you, David 😈

        Apologies for posting a match report on this thread. Could you set up a live thread for the remainder of these three tourneys, TP?

  10. Sol said

    This “article” brings nothing new to the table. Other than bashing Fed, which isn’t new, it doesn’t even bother to analyze the possible slowing down of the surfaces, which would be the only real interest in reading this crap. As Chip pointed out, the surfaces have been slowed or at least, most observers and players feel it has. Other than the ones mentionned by Chip and others, I remember Safin saying at the AO last year, that he doesn’t “know what to do with the ball on this surface”. Nadal himself has said this year that the second week of Wimby feels like clay.

    Also, this, “Does he seriously think that history is going to place an asterisk against Nadal’s achievements based on his allegations of surfaces being slowed down”. Why not? History seems ready to put an asterisk on Fed’s FO win since Nadal wasn’t there. The “weak era” has been fed as an argument by anyone who wants to discard Fed’s achievements for years now. When compared to other greats, the racket technology has also been used as a factor to explain Fed’s success. So why wouldn’t we argue that Nadal’s achievements are tremendous (and more to come, I’m sure) but mention that the surfaces have been slowed and this has benefited him because it suits his game better?

    • Jenny said

      One could also argue that Madrid clay in the ‘Magic Box’, together with it’s high altitude, plays like a fast hard court and favours the big servers, it’s swings and roundabouts, just like the luck of the draws. At one time, you rarely saw Rafa and Ferru banging down aces on a clay court, they didn’t need a big serve on traditional clay, but they’ve had to improve that area of their game to be successful on a hard/grass court. As I see it, today’s successful players have to adapt to all surfaces, get out of their comfort zone, become complete players, or they’ll get left behind.

      • chipnputt said

        Jenny… of course, your point is correct that there are all sorts of surfaces around and one needs to be a complete player. But think of how courts have changed over the last few years — are they being slowed down, especially at the Slams? The answer appears to be yes. So, yes, while you have to be complete player to win everywhere, courts are changing to favor the baseliner and someone who hits with a lot of spin. And even Madrid, fast it may be for a clay court, has been slowed down. After all the tournament was played on an indoor hard court until 2008. I can’t think of one example where a court has been speeded up over the last five years or so. Wouldn’t be very wise commercially.

      • Sol said

        Yes, of course, Jenny.
        But I was refering to Roger’s original quote, where he says that the Calendar Slam is more achievable for Nadal nowadays, so I only mentioned the GS surfaces, not other tournaments. And I don’t deny Nadal has adapted to the surfaces, only that it might have helped him somewhat that the surfaces have also been adapted to suit his style of game better.

      • Jenny said

        I can’t think of one example where a court has been speeded up over the last five years or so.

        To be fair, I can’t disagree, Chip. However, I’m sure you will agree, many of the traditional baseliners are coming successfully to the net with deft touches a lot more than they ever used to.

    • chipnputt said

      Sol… I hope history doesn’t put an asterisk anywhere for either of them for you can only play the surface (or opponent) that you get. But your point is valid. There does appear to be one huge double standard when assessing Federer and Nadal. When Roger won the French, there was a lot of talk about it being somehow diminished because he never beat Nadal in the final. Even some petty credible commentators — Collins, Wilander — got in on that. That Nadal was in the draw and had got beaten early didn’t seem to matter.

      Now take Nadal’s USO victory. He has been showered with all kinds of praise and is even being discussed as the GOAT. Nobody seems to care that he never beat Roger in the final (and Roger’s USO record is just as, if not more, impressive than Rafa at the FO) or that the defending champion (ya, the guy who had beaten Nadal 2, 2, and 2 the previous year) was missing from the draw.

      • Jenny said

        I agree with Sol and Chip.

        “When Roger won the French, there was a lot of talk about it being somehow diminished because he never beat Nadal in the final”

        Very true. Also when Fed beat a tired, possibly injured Nadal in Hamburg 2007. It was a similar scenario when Ferrero beat Rafa in Rome 2008, his victory was also somewhat dimnished by the media and some fans. Agreed, Rafa had the blister, it was horrible, but it’s rarely been mentioned that Juan Carlos was nursing a leg injury which wasn’t obvious to the naked eye. He had to retire to a lesser player in the first round at Roland Garros because of it.

      • Ash said

        I hope those victories are not ‘qualified’ and in the fullness of time the only fact remembered should be the result (not blisters, fatigue etc). I completely disagree with anyone diminishing Federers victory at the FO, nor would I attack the Nadal USO win (by the same reasoning). Just goes to show, you cannot please everyone and I cannot help feeling that ‘personal prejudices’ are behind some commentators expressing these views.

      • Jenny said

        Ash, My attitude now is the better player wins on the day, irrespective of ranking, and that also includes fitness, because a player has to be fit for purpose too, a win is a win in any language, even if one of my own faves loses. It must be accepted [albeit may be through gritted teeth] and due credit given to the victor. I must confess, when I first started watching tennis I felt very differently – eg the Borg/Mac rivalry, latterly Fed/Nalbandian in the early days. lol Believe me, I could have wished Nalby further when he played Fed!

      • ClayBuster said

        Very well said, Chipnputt. The amount of double standards from the media (and unfortunately ‘fans’ as well) is indeed nausating.

        How often does it have to be repeated that one can only defeat the guy on that actually appears on the other side of the net? Fed’s victory at RG is totally ‘valid’, and so is Nadal’s at the USO. Neither of them could have done anything about their ‘main rival’ not appearing at the finals they played.

        As for Fed’s comments on slowing down the surfaces, isn’t he just stating FACTS? Tell me about ONE surface, anywhere, that has been speeded up in the past 5 years or so. I can’t remember it…

  11. Anonymous said

    I thought the balls were slower, too, or bounce higher or something. Have they been changing balls?

  12. grendel said

    jenny, thanks for that, I caught the match at 2 all in the 3rd.From what I saw, Simon deserved to win. There was some brilliant stuff sporadically from Nalby – for instance, a tremendous return of serve to secure his break for 4-2, and then a delicious double whammy of drop and lob in the next game just when he was in a spot of bovver. He still managed to lose it though.

    A curious hotch-potch. e.g. in the longer rallies, which seemed to me to be high class, Nalbandian was just a wee bit cautious, as if he thought the standard was too high for Simon to maintain. On the contrary, Simon clearly could live with the pace and then when an opportunity arose, even if only slight, he went for it. And, dearly beloved (you know your Just So Stories, I trust?)let it be said that he was rewarded.
    But then again, as if bored or something, there were plenty of meaningless unforced errors from the Nalby racket. No wonder he looked cross, and even thought to pick a fight with the umpire despite having won the point.

    Simon, in what I saw, was very steady. But he did unleash a few terrific returns of serve. He’s not normally known for that, is he?

    Well, that was an agreeable, and unexpected, little spell of tennis spectating.

    • Jenny said

      Glad you managed to see some of the match, Grendel. I thought it might be your cup of tea. The first set was vintage Nalbandian at his best, a pity you missed it. Totally agree with the rest of your critque, that’s how I saw those last two sets.

    • Banti said

      I have recently found myself in awe with nalby’s sheer talent and also recently realized being a nalby fan is risky and not for the faint hearted.

      • Jenny said

        Believe me, Banti, I’ve had 8yrs of it. The worrying issue when he’s in the zone, his tennis and talent is addictive, I’ll go the extra mile to watch him play [we know he can beat anyone] the thing is, we always want that next ‘fix’ which doesn’t always happen.

  13. Bola said

    Jack Nicklaus is still the greatest golfer, not only for his 18 grand slams, but he was a gracious loser, had appreciative comments for fellow winners. So does Tiger Woods, giving credit to the winner. This is something Federer may want to emulate, not that it matters. Objective tennis fans know the difference between just winning and being a great winner !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: