The Rally returns, only two days later than scheduled. This time fellow tennis writer Kamakshi Tandon and I will talk about a familiar, but seemingly inexhaustible, topic: Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.
*
Kamakshi,
I know you wanted something lively for our non-playing-week rally post, but are you sure you want to step into the middle of the Federer-Nadal fan wars? It is a fascinating topic, not so much because of the players themselves or even the arguments of their fans, but what it shows about our perceptions—though I'm not exactly sure what that is at the moment. So let me start with some questions.
First, is the fan rivalry more intense with these two than with past players, or is it just that the Internet has made it more obvious? I don’t remember an iron divide between Agassi and Sampras fans, but the Graf-Seles wars still rage online 20 years after they had their best matches on court.
Second, is there something about tennis itself that discourages bipartisanship? It’s the rare sport that gives you a chance to see two individuals meeting each other face to face. Maybe more important, it’s a sport that offers fans, especially on TV, easy scrutiny of a player’s every move, gesture, grunt, word, snarl, hair flick. We judge tennis players on how they walk, celebrate, fight through adversity, and call for the towel as much as we do the way they hit the ball. A lot goes into being a tennis fan. Unlike team sports, your favorite isn’t chosen for you, by the city where you happen to live. That makes the relationship an intense one, always in need of justification to the people who don't agree with you. I don't need to justify the character of any of the Philadelphia Eagles (except, well, bad example...)
Maybe, like the U.S. Congress, it’s evidence that we’re not wired for bipartisanship in the first place. As different as Nadal and Federer are in some ways, they’re alike in a lot of others, and they seem to get along well, as you can see from above. Yet on this blog and Pete’s blog, the idea of being a fan of both of them equally seems a little weird—or maybe just boring. When Tennisworld started, and to a lesser extent, when my blog started, both in 2005, most of the comments addressed the game as a whole rather than the merits of one player over another. But that slowly changed and people settled into different camps, which is the dynamic that drives much of the commentary now.
It may be inevitable that, as objective as we try to be, we’ll choose favorites for reasons beyond our comprehension, and all of our perceptions will be colored by that fundamental preference. What I’ve wondered is whether being a fan of one player makes those perceptions more or less reliable. From my own experience, I’ve begun to think that it’s the fan who sees his or her beloved tennis player in the truest light.
So my final question: What do you think of that?
Steve
*
Steve,
The answer is that Federer is the greatest of all time. Except that Nadal is greater. But Federer is the greaterest. No, Nadal is the greaterestish of all. No, Federer; no, Nadal; no...
And this is the problem. In general, being a fan of a player is a basic and vital part of pro tennis. It’s how most people are first drawn to the game, and it’s by watching their player that they get to know other pros and the intricacies of play well enough to develop an attachment to the sport itself.
Rivalries, too, are integral to tennis. Rooting interests play a big role in making a match emotionally relevant. But rivalries also invite polarization. Federer and Nadal are certainly good enough and different enough to make for a compelling rivalry—despite comparable demographics and values, they symbolize very different things.
Almost everyone agrees that Federer vs. Nadal is a great spectacle that elevates the sport to its highest level. The challenge is that it can also produce a level of intensity and polarization that threatens to suck everything else into its orbit.
I don’t object to what people want to discuss, of course, except to the extent that it becomes impossible to talk about anything without it turning into a pitched battle between Federites and Nadalians. Looks like Murray’s hitting his forehand better these days, doesn’t it? Oh yeah? It’s not as good as Federer's! Federer hah—Nadal's forehand is way better. No, Federer. No, Nadal..
Where were we? Oh yes. It’s a bit like the Cold War, a bipolar world where you’re either with us or with them, where neutrality only means you’re a spy for the other side, and where everything is defined in relation to that bigger conflict.
Or, as you said, a bit like American politics these days. It seems bipartisanship breaks down when there’s a perception of threat (or perhaps more accurately here, a threat to our perceptions), and Federer and Nadal are not only a threat to each other on court, but to each other’s claims as GOAT.
The Internet does plays a huge role in the level of intensity, because it’s made fans an independent entity for the first time, given them a voice. I’m sure people thought the same things before that they do now, it’s just that we didn’t know what we were all thinking and couldn’t talk to each other about it. Federer-Nadal is the first big epoch since the participatory Internet (blogs, message boards, social media) became fully mainstream.
So yes, it’s fair to say it’s an amplified version of a phenomenon that has probably always existed. In my subjective experience, the topics that shattered the peace and tranquility of the tennis community on the Internet in the late 1990s were:
—Graf and Seles and the stabbing
—the Williams sisters and race
—Sampras' Grand Slam record chase and its meaning (this is incidentally
when we get the origins of the word GOAT)
For whatever reason, some players also seem to attract more militant supporters. I know this is probably asking for a storm in the comments (don’t take it too seriously), but here are the players I’d loosely say have the most reactionary fans:
1. Venus and Serena Williams
2. Roger Federer
3. Monica Seles
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Stefan Edberg (though they’re always polite)
So two questions for you: One, what’s the good and bad in these wars? You made an interesting comment about fans seeing their beloved player in the truest light—what does that involve? Second, are you brave or foolish enough to make some general characterizations about Federer fans versus Nadal fans? We’ve all become familiar with the the on-court battle. What's the dynamic of the proxy battle?
Kamakshi
*
Kamakshi,
It’s true, sometimes I feel like I should begin every piece here with a warning: “This Post is Not About Roger Federer.” When I was at a Davis Cup tie a few years ago, I wrote a few pieces praising the winners, the U.S., and talking about Andy Roddick’s dedication to the cause. I noticed a few of Federer's loyalists in the comments talking about how easy it was for the U.S. to win, that it must be nice to have a great doubles team to rely on, that Roddick wouldn’t care about Davis Cup if he could win Wimbledon. The point being, that by praising Roddick for his dedication I was somehow implying a criticism of Federer, who skipped Switzerland’s first-round tie that year.
And you’re right, there are upsides and downsides to this war (I can’t bring myself to write Fedal, and definitely not TMF). When the discussion gets going, you can almost hear an “Oh God, here we go again” cry go up. But at the same time, it’s become so central that talking about anything else starts to seem drab and beside the point, and you can sort of feel people wishing that someone would come in with a vicious attack on either Federer or Nadal to get it started again—or maybe that’s just me. Either way, the stakes suddenly become much lower when you write or talk about anything else. As you said, Federer-Nadal is a vortex, and it even sucks other players into its orbit, like pawns in a greater game. Robin Soderling became a pet of Federer’s fans, and persona non grata among Nadal’s, after he beat Nadal at the French and thanked Federer for giving him “a lesson” in the final. Then, of course, he reversed those results the next year, so I’m not sure exactly where he stands. Maybe the Sod has broken free of the vortex and matters on his own now.
When I talk about a player’s fans seeing him in the truest light, I guess I’m saying that they’re close enough to see him the way a parent sees a child—no one has spent as much time, say, watching Federer’s mannerisms and game as his most ardent fans. Just as important, no one has spent as much time feeling his emotions with him—when you root for someone, you understand that player’s point of view; some of what they’re feeling seeps into you (it’s a strange relationship, isn’t it?). I’ve written about this before, but during this year’s Australian Open, I found myself rooting for Federer, and I noticed things about him that I’d never noticed. I could tell when he was nervous much more easily. I’ve also found myself rooting for Nadal in the past, and his fans typically say I “understand” him. I guess it depends whether you think a parent sees a “truer” version of their kid than anyone else. Maybe not, maybe they overlook or forgive obvious deficiencies. But fans do have insights into their favorites that other close observers don’t. Of course, they also say things like, “I love how Roger’s sweat stains are always heart-shaped.”
Stefan Edberg had intense fans? I had no idea. I guess the gentlemanly types get that? Or was it just his hair? I was more of a Wilander guy myself. We can understand sympathy for Monica and the polarizing effect of the Williamses. In my experience, Federer’s fans are touchier than Nadal’s, maybe because he has been so dominant for so long that he seems to have elevated himself above all criticism—why nitpick the greatest tennis player ever when you should just be appreciating him? Or maybe there’s that gentlemanly aspect of his character as well, which get people to be protective of him. Federer makes his superiority look like the natural order of things. Nadal’s fans seem fanclub-ish or cultish, like they’ve known all along about this goofy but great kid that the world is just beginning to appreciate. That might change if he stays No. 1 for three or four years. I wrote something recently about how Nadal had had a good fall, but that he still needed to be at his best to win on hard courts; anything less and he would struggle. Someone commented, “Why is there always a ‘but’ when it comes to Rafa, why can’t you just say he's had an incredible year?” Greatness brings defensiveness. There’s more to defend.
What does each group dislike about the other player? Federer fans seem to think Nadal is falsely modest; Nadal fans think Federer is pompous. I'd say that each player has a different idea of what constitutes a genuine answer to a reporter's question. Federer believes in the truth as it applies to him, as he lives it—I''ve been the best for so long, the proof is in the results, so why should I pretend otherwise? Nadal is more philosophical, his truth more general. He's a tennis player, and tennis players lose, so it's natural for him to lose. The fact that they have these different ways of looking at the world makes their rivalry deeper and more interesting, and it makes their fans that much more exasperated when the other side can't see where their guy is coming from.
Overall, the whole thing is a positive, and I've been happy to learn on this site what tennis players can mean to people. I’ll finish by citing two commenters whom we’ve met, and who sit on opposite sides of this fence. Andrew Burton is a Federer fan—but not a bodyguard—who is always excited to see what Roger will do next and how he’ll play, no matter how seemingly insignificant the event. Seeing that type of passion from Andrew and others has made the tour more exciting to me, less routine; it’s easier to get into a tournament like Stockholm or Basel when you know that people get so much pleasure out of seeing what Roger Federer is up to, whether it’s his game or his hair or his shirt or his kids or the pattern of his sweat stains (sorry to bring that back up). That makes the whole sport more fun.
AmyLu is in the Nadal camp. A comment she posted a few years ago during the Australian Open stuck with me. Rafa made his debut for that season Down Under; he hadn’t played, or been shown playing, in at least a month. ESPN showed him walk on court and lift his hand quickly to the crowd the way he does. Then they cut to a commercial. AmyLu said something like: ‘I just got my first glimpse of Rafa of the year. Now all is well with the world and I can go back to studying.’ It’s worth the wars to know that a tennis player can make someone feel that way.
Steve
*
Steve,
Good points all. I agree with the general characterization of Federer fans and Nadal fans—the overall impression, though obviously there’s a lot of difference between individuals.
I think part of the touchiness is succumbing to the temptation to believe Federer is actually perfect, because he actually gets darn close to how a lot of people would indeed draw the perfect No. 1. Secondly, he climbed the mountain first, and now Nadal is at the gates, as it were. The established order must be defended.
Nadal is the challenger, and his energy and modern flair promise new and exciting things that it’s inviting to be a part of. Yet Nadal’s wins have often been in the context of Federer’s defeats, and sometimes the latter has taken prominence (Australia being a prime example). So there must be loud advocacy to make sure Rafa gets his due.
It’s natural, but it’s just a stage of fandom. You won’t feel about the next player the way you do about Federer or Nadal, probably. These two have attracted a lot of new and lapsed fans who are in the first flush of their enthusiasm. It’s great, but they don’t always realize that not everyone is in the same stage they are. Hence the “you're a Federer/Nadal hater” or “you’re a Federer/Nadal apologist” reactions (often to the same thing!) to what are, from the writer’s perspective, quite dispassionate comments.
Thinking about it, you’re right that we have a more ‘authentic’ perspective on a player when rooting for him (after all, people generally give themselves the benefit of the doubt). But paradoxically, it only increases the difference between perspectives. Pete’s post earlier this week contrasting a Federer-centered and Nadal-centered view of the London draw captured this quite amusingly. (Our goal for the next series should be to come up with a topic he doesn't write about the same week. ?)
The flip side, as you say, is that it’s nice to see such delight taken in the whole tennis experience—identifying with a player, being captivated by the contests and getting to know the whole culture and vibe of the game. Hopefully what’ll last is the culture Federer and Nadal have united to create, and not what divides their followers.
Meanwhile, spare a thought for the tournament director of the Paris indoors, who spearheaded the faster courts at the event this year: “Before, we were accused with a slower surface of choosing it because of Nadal and now we are accused with the faster surface to do a favor to Roger.”
Kamakshi