Next supporter in line?

As I have only been a fan of tennis since 2003, I have never had to experience or even envisage, up until now, my favourite player retiring.
Feds has made me love this sport, a sport that I didn't believe I could love and be so passionate about as I am now.
His grace, style and majesty over a tennis court is surely coming to an end, and soon. I am dreading the day, as are millions worldwidem when TMF finally hangs up his racket.

I think it will be a true test of character in regards to my loyalty to the sport. Do I love this sport enough without feds? I do not know.
Being a "fan" is something that we must all cherish, and for us it is all a rollercoaster, though more for some than others.

Here and there you will inevitably cheer for another player but they all pale in comparison to the one you truly follow and at present is there really anyone else who possesses that intangible ability to amaze and send you leaping gleefully into the air in ecstasy? It's hard to say.

Why is it that most of the tennis fans support the big 4? Because of their style of play, on/off court demeanor but also their success. You won't get a huge legion of dog fans, goffin fans or dimi fans, until they reach the top that is. I could be wrong but generally the big boys have the vast fan bases, not the minnows who may possess an abundance of talent but don't have the results to go along with it.

My point is who will you support when your player's time is up? It's causes pause for thought and not a cheery at that.
I'm trying to put my faith in gulbis at present but it seems I will have to lower my standards quite a way for the time being as there really is one Federer. I salute you sir, you brought me into the sport and I've never looked back.... until now. CHeers!

I've been thinking about the supporting factor for some time now and came to conclusion that a large part of people supporting anyone in any sport is the winning factor.
That's the only reason I can explain men supporting Nadal for example.

With Federer you have the marriage of not only winning but beautiful, stylish and explosive tennis, good looks, great on-court demeanour that all makes him an exception in many ways.

Why do people like winners?

My only guess is because losing is such a natural modus operandi for just about anyone.
Whether you are having to study hard for your exams, go to work and put up with a crap boss, see people around envy you but at the same time offer you their platitudes and niceties , we all go through the motions we'd rather not, and would rather be somewhere else doing something else at just about any point in time. So life feels like a losing game being like that.

That's why all Hollywood films end with a ride into sunset, if they didn't - cinemas would be empty.
The peak have to be slam winning moments and the way players react: some fall on their knees, some cry, some have a face of shock or disbelief...very strange to see but we all love watching it. Those are such rare moments. I assume if they were common, nobody would care. Such is human nature....

On the other hand, there is the joy of seeing someone play beautifully, appreciating the skill and the feeling that player gets when he/she hits a fantastic shot, esp if you are a player yourself and you know how great it feels to pull one off.

I like watching quite a few players, mainly for their elegance when playing.
I also like hyper-attacking players because they give you an amazing buzz and crazy adrenaline rides when you see them rush forward and take the ball on with zest!
So, there will always be players that are beautiful to watch without having the winning appeal.

anyone in particular you can see after nole? Paire right? But he's only 2 years younger than nole. It's different for feds and nole due to the 6 year age gap, so perhaps the next big thing to take your fancy will be a junior right now.

luvsports! wrote:anyone in particular you can see after nole? Paire right? But he's only 2 years younger than nole. It's different for feds and nole due to the 6 year age gap, so perhaps the next big thing to take your fancy will be a junior right now.

I like Paire a lot and he gives me the same buzz as Nole whether he is winning or losing. Similar with Dolgo when he is on.
Nole has the extra appeal because he beats Nadal, so that's the added bonus of enjoying watch someone lose. Terrible, but true

The thing LS is that like me you were a fan of Federer's tennis. The guy seems really smart, genuinely kind, and balanced but I don;t really know him and I am not that interested in knowing him further as he is no philospher, prophet or guru we could learn wisdom from. Fed is about tennis and his tennis is certainly enough to get people into the game.

After him? Well same thing you will have the next huge talent and though I agree its important to have a winning talent it is not essential. I loved to watch Korda, Medvedev, Rios, Edberg, Goran etc....and it kept me watching tennis without some of them achieving anything big and often ending on teh losing end of all their key matches (slam finals). You still watch it like we watched Federer lose all his slam encounters v Federer bar the 2 Wimby ones.

However I agree that teh problem we are facing is to find someone who will amaze us like Fed did. But you know after watching peak McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg and peak Goran it was difficult to think tennis coudl be bettered...but nature always find a way to surpass herself and deliver the next genius with on top a different flavour to keep us excited.

Federer was a great player before 2003 could not get past the first round of slams but suddenly in that WImby everything clicked in and he never looked back.

nice posts guys. Tenez was there one in particular that you were sad to see go? Has there been one for you like feds? Who can you see supporting next?

There is hope ..... enjoyed watching the little girl play. She obvioulsly had the time of her life, too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y4TF0imqn5w#!

luvsports! wrote:nice posts guys. Tenez was there one in particular that you were sad to see go? Has there been one for you like feds? Who can you see supporting next?

I woudl only be sad to see them go if they were quitting while at the top. Only 2 players left while at the top (or near enough to win slams) were Borg and Pete. I didn't really like Pete so I was not sad but certainly got affected by my first idol quitting Borg. He promised to come back multiple times but his comebacks were not very successful.

Regarding all the others I was not sad to see them retire you are sad to see them lose versus lower ranked players, especially at slams. See McEnroe, Lendl lose earlier than expected annoyed me....from that time you almost want them to retire.

I really don't get this "retire when on top" thing....to me that's the ultimate ego-trip....
I've got this book High Strung which talks about that famous Borg Mac Wimbledon final, but can't get myself to get back to reading it after I started it about two years ago, that gives a good insight into what went on in that era and the mindset of both Mac but esp Borg. I never got to the retiring bit still. I decided to go back to reading it on the Eurostar on the way to RG this year. Would be a fitting occasion, in fact.

Borg's retirement was very different than Pete's. Borg was asked to play to play too much and/or qualification on almost all tournaments. Added the fact McEnroe was getting the better of him, he retired. He had also been so focused for years since his teens that he wanted to live normallly I guess.

For Pete it's quite different. I agree this is an ego thing. He wanted to live showing the world he coudl still win slams if he wanted too (though he knew it woudl be very unlikely) but kind of wanted us to believe it was up to him to want it to do it. Certainly an ego thing to me.

nitb who did you support in the past? and who were you sad to see go?

I used to support Seles (and really disliked Graf).
I could not stand Agassi and Sampras left me totally cold. I liked Ivanisevic, esp when he was in his baby phase. A lot of players had bits of something, but nobody really everything, like Federer or Nole do now.
I wasn't old enough to follow Mac and Borg properly, so just saw bits of some matches, just like with Navratilova. They were all great players but that was in the pre internet days and you could only see them on TV i.e. Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

There was only one player I was ever very sad to see go: Justine Henin.

I was a Becker and Connors fan. They really brought the game to a level that made me believe that I myself could play like that. The will to win mixed with the spirit to entertain was a joy. Connors v Borg and Becker v Edberg among my favourite rivalries.

I am partisan at heart and seeing British players do well is always encouraging, but also being realistic of the players to follow was a must. Never warmed to Greg. Tim I always had a soft spot for. 2001 is always etched in many fans mind as the 'Big one' he should've won. Tim was just too much of a nice guy and it was always difficult to remain annoyed at him when he fell short. Yes I follow Murray now, but he is much too wooden for my liking and I don't think immerses people in his matches say like Tim did. With Tim he played his heart out and tried everything in his power to win the match and only ever appealled to the crowd for extra momentum when going got tough.

Aside from that Sampras and Agassi. Now Agassi in 1992 at Wimbledon, amazing. Has to be said that was mirrored by Sampras demolishing Agassi in 1999 and then Federer overcoming Sampras in 2001. Becker winning 1996 AO was a highlight for me. Sampras and Agassi didn't really capture my interest. My brother liked Sampras, though I think that was because of his high level of success and plus he kept on beating Becker!

In recent time coverage of tennis has improved and now you can access the lower ranked players and it is good sometimes you can see matches that serve as an appetiser for a tournament or upcoming match. Federer has just totally revamped the sport. Similar to Borg, his global status just reaches each end of the world. People want to see him play and that following is just the most intense I could recall since Borg. I think yes Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have certainly helped interest in tennis stay fresh, though because being in the same era as Federer really does ask the question would the interest have stayed had Federer not been part of that group? Who knows.

From a newbie to the sport, this is the current standard and these are the stars. How they view them and rate them I don't know. Those who have followed the sport in the early days of the pro era will know that the sport has evolved and the changes in recent time have not been all for the better hence why their loyalty to the sport is waning slightly and why post Federer they might not tune in. When Borg retired it left a massive hole. Fans still tuned in, though the new breed weren't the most endearing. Wilander and Lendl not many's cup of tea and McEnroe and Connors seemed to still be the top stars and their stock remained until Becker, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi came along.

I see Djokovic, Nadal and Murray as top stars, though I think if more risk taking players emerge from the youth ranks might see a swing in support, though much of it relies on success.

I think love or loath McEnroe and Connors certainly were pretty good to fill the gap left by Borg...there was still lots of characters in the game. They coudl afford then to show emotions and win.

Now it;s much tougher.

Oh yes indeed there were characters. The Connors and McEnroe rivalry was one that certainly helped tennis after Borg left.

I think professionalism in tennis is at such a point now where Nadal and Murray more so have more emphasis and concentration on court that really prevents them actually showing us anything of the people behind the player. Take Murray playing Donskoy. Donskoy played some shots in that match worthy of acknowledgment and yet Murray's response to losing a point to some exceptional shot making was the self berrating. Murray is not alone with that type of conduct on court, but if he really wants to attract more supporters, just show some humility.

Watching the likes of Fognini and Tsonga who for me enjoy it. Not ones that strike me that they will push themselves or break themselves for the 'fitter' mantra in the sport. What you see is what you get and I like that.

I find with Federer that unless he is really pushed to the limits in the talent stakes that you rarely see him immerse himself in the moments of a match. In fairness I don't think being a laughy and jokey type would suit him though.

When you look at Murray and Nadal they come across as fussy characters who are not able to be happy: they continually moan whether on or off court, that's why they play and carry on like they do. You are never going to see them go for a shot to please the crowd, they are plain dead boring.

Imagine being able to go out for drinks with any of today's players, who would it be?
That will give you the answer.....
I can't think of anyone, although the less politically correct ones would always be more interesting.

I would actually go for a drink with Youzhny!!

I am sure it would be a laugh and entertaining as hell!

gulbis big time!

legendkillar wrote:Murray is not alone with that type of conduct on court, but if he really wants to attract more supporters, just show some humility.

Yes Murray is not alone but he certainly is one of teh worst in that department. Nadal can be worse as he is knocking his head to say how lucky was his opponent to make that fantastic shot. But in a way it's normal cause those guys are deliberately not taking risk and play to retreive everything so the risk their opponent has to take is ridiculous and indeed they see this as almost luck..which can be some extend.

Federer is also one who doesn't congratulate much on points but that is essentially due to the fact he can do it but better.

I would go with Federer and Davydenko. I woudl say they are my kind of guys. Federer cause I am sure he must be special to be with such a talent. He must see the world in an interesting way. Davy cause he is down to earth and also very talented. I am intrigued by people who have been blessed with a talent.

I am no fan of those who try to compensate with hard work. It's anti-natural. You would not want to see the sky filled with hard working ostriches trying to outdo the albatros, woudl you?That's how I see the likes of Nadal, Murray and Djoko.

Imagine walking into a pub and seeing this scenario:

Table one: Ferrer, Granollers, Kohlschreiber, Murray, Nadal and Ramos all laughing at Nadal's jokes.

Table two: Stepanek, Rosol, Delpo, Nole, Youzhny & Gulbis all laughing at each other's jokes.

Table three: Fed, Davy and an anonymous guy who seems to be their fan, all three too talented to laugh....

noleisthebest wrote:Imagine walking into a pub and seeing this scenario:

Table one: Ferrer, Granollers, Kohlschreiber, Murray, Nadal and Ramos all laughing at Nadal's jokes.

Table two: Stepanek, Rosol, Delpo, Nole, Youzhny & Gulbis all laughing at each other's jokes.

Table three: Fed, Davy and an anonymous guy who seems to be their fan, all three too talented to laugh....

I can imagine Fed, Davy and the anonymous not finding anything funny to say until they realise Djoko must have forgot to put his contact lenses again as there is an empy seat on table 1.