nice and interesting article.. i didn't know 2006 comments of Roger. back then,i wasn't that much interested in tennis. but i always sensed that roger has been underestimating rafa maybe until 2007 wimbledon final. maybe it was the first time that roger understood that rafa was not totally "one-dimensional". since then,his comments have been much more cautious.

Silly question but is it possible that the media pushes Federer more than Nadal to come out with answers like this? Journalist are as savvy as lawyers and ask the same question in many different ways. Maybe Federer knows he has to give a little away so the media then moves onto something else.
I know Nadal fans will burn me at the stake for posing this question but on the record I am a great fan of both players!

the truth is that Roger has been watching Rafa ever since he became #2. And he's been threatened by this raging bull ever since he assumed the second spot and held it 'till today. Now that their positions are reversed, Rafa can now proudly admit that he will be the favorite coming to the US Open. The real challenge will come from Djokovic. Feds immortality totally vanished when he lost early in Beijing, yet again to a player whom he used to toy with ( Blake).
Seeing Roger jump like a kid after winning the Olympic doubles made us realize that he's not a god after all. It's like seeing him win the French open. Like winning that match saved his face after his successive losses.
The US Open will definitely save his glory and winning the year end Masters Cup will surely make people believe in him AGAIN!
If Rafa gets the US Open trophy, it will be difficult for Federer to gain his confidence back but Ndal's win will definitely boost the confidence of the rest of the players .

I don't know why but regardless of whether or not Federer likes or dislikes Nadal I think he still respects him as a competitor.

sisterofnight- I think you might be right. He doesn't say one-dimensional anymore. I suppose that after getting beaten so many times, it doesn't make a lot of sense to take shots at your opponent's game.

Bernie, I think yours is a VERY good question. I don't know the answer, but it's worth considering that he's simply feeding the media a little controversy.

cherylmurray roger could be honest about what he said regarding andy and lleyton...im not siding with any player but back then rafa was just a budding player..he was yet to come into focus....besides,i do agree with some people that the media pushes roger more than rafa..that question about the light during the wimbledon final was asked by the media..and rafa too said that he couldnt see anything and that he felt tht they wouldve postponed the play had he lost his serve..its just that he won so nobody payed attention to that...besides i find federer giving his honest opinion about every other player...he does get a bit sulky when he loses especially to nadal...now about what armidan said-federer spoke about the schedule as he was asked about it...and as far as the relationship goes...both federer and nadal respect eachother...there is no denying that..

Part 2 is really very interesting. In spite of these facts, I still believe that Roger respects Rafael. Respects and is afraid of his vigour. And was always afraid actually.

Nadal plays exactly the same way on every surface. Federer was only stating the obvious. Why is that an insult? This doesn't mean that Nadal hasn't improved all the aspects of his game from faster serves to better backhands, volleys and especialy movement on all surfaces. Still, the guy plays the same game everytime he shows up. Some days he's taken down by better fast court players (i.e., Djokovic in Cincy) and you see the weaknesses in his game. He's the best athlete on the tour today even though he plays the same week in and week out, regardless the surface.

Roger Federer isn't the only one to comment about Uncle Toni coaching from the sidelinds. Before Roger's comments in Rome, BBC and Eurosport announcers were commenting on Uncle Toni's antics in Monte Carlo that year. For the most part, Nadal figures it out for himself but there have been times that Uncle Tony slipped in a signal that went undetected by the chair ump. Besides this isn't new to Nadal and Uncle Toni. Check out Sharapova and her dad. Thierry Champion would call out instructions to Gael Monfils throughout his match anytime Monfils was at the same end of the court as his coach. I sat behind Champion at IW and listened to him do it all match long.

Regarding Nadal's humility - he's been coached well in handling the press. Just like Nuke LaLouche from "Bull Durham." He keeps it simple, sticks to the same answers and always ads "no" at the end of a sentence. Heaven help the English speaking press (not to mention readers) who have to work with this kid as long as he's #1. We're in for a dull run in the interview department. This is most likely where Federer will be missed the most until his eventual return to the top spot in 2009.

BernieEliza:
I'm a Rafa fan, but see no reason to "burn you at the stake" for asking a good question. Re: Question 1 ("...is it possible that the media pushes Federer...to come out with answers like this?"), of course it's possible. However, Federer is not some automaton manipulated by the press. He is in control of his answers, and can choose to make them positive or negative. It's not the question that counts; it's the answer.

Re: Question 2 ("Maybe Federer knows he has to give a little away so that the media moves on to something else."). Unlikely! Federer has no problem shutting down the media when asked a question he doesn't like. Most of his post-match interviews after French Open will provide plenty of examples.

BernieEliza: It's not the question that counts; it's the answer.
---------------------------------------------------------

That is correct and it's only part 1 of 2. The 2nd part is that the interpretation of the answer depends on the bias of the listener/reader. If you don't like Federer - as it appears to be the case with the author, Cherly Murray - you will spin anything Fed says negatively. That Nadal plays a one dimensional game in and of itself is not negative, it's just true and Nadal is very good at it; probably the best. That the comment would be interpreted as negative tells you everything you want to know about Murray, not Federer.

1frotheroad - you clearly have a different definition of insult than I. The truth of a statement has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is an insult or not. Walking up to an overweight person and saying "you're fat" is the truth. It is also an insult. He called Nadal "one-dimensional" as an insult to his game. I cannot see any way to argue around that fact. I'd even argue that it is untrue at this point, but as I've already stated, the truth of a matter has nothing to do with it being insulting.

Secondly, I'm sure you noticed that nowhere did I "call" Federer out for saying those things . Mostly because I think the irritation (or whatever you want to call it) is justified. Mostly. I have NO IDEA if Toni Nadal was coaching Rafael in Rome that day. I DO know that it was Rafa out there on that court holding his nerve better than his opponent. I know it was getting dark at Wimbledon, but Federer did NOT lose because of the light, he lost because he was broken in the fifth set.

cherylmurray: This is not about definitions, it's about interpretations of what people say. Everyone is entitled to their own but expressions reflect the person who is communicating, not the subject particularly when it comes to blogs. Your expressions might influence others (isn't that why you write in the first place?) but not everyone. I do not agree that calling a particular style of play "one dimensional" is a negative. I also have no problem with Federer, in the press, calling out for specific players to think twice about better conditioning if they want to rise in the rankings.

Nadal's game is one dimensional: it's the same style on every surface, year in and year out. Being one dimensional doesn't mean the player doesn't have weapons. Quite the opposite and I can think of no other player more vocal, and specific, about Nadal's continued improvement and developing weapons than Federer.

I really don't know your profession but if you intend to stick with tennis commentary and you want your remarks to be credible, then you should spend more time following the game. There were plenty of remarks about Uncle Toni coaching Nadal pre-Rome. It's fine if you don't know about it but it doesn't mean there wasn't a public issue about it with others (sportscasters and players for starters). This makes your commenting uninformed.

I'm afraid I don't follow your 2nd paragraph since they are contradictory. First you say you didn't "call" Federer out and then explain that your irritation is justified. I'm at a loss there along with even more Federer bashing for a reason I fail to see other than you just don't like the guy. Fair enough.

As far as I'm concerned all the guys in the top 100 are phenomenal players and Nadal has worked bloody hard to get his #1 position. He deserves it.

I said HIS irritation is justified. Not mine. I'm not irritated in the least.

And I disagree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that Nadal plays the same game on every surface. His grass game and his clay game are markedly different. He flattens out his backhand, occasionally his forehand and goes for that kicking serve out wide on grass. TOTALLY different to how he puts together a clay court match. And if you are prepared to claim that being called one-dimensional is a compliment, have at it.

Secondly, if Toni nadal were so blatantly coaching his nephew during matches, they would have been busted on it already. They have not been. Accusation does not make something true. How many people blather on about Nadal doping because he has that physique? It doesn't make it true. The point is not whether the allegations are true - I was not there sitting behind the Nadal clan, so I don't have first-hand knowledge and I suspect neither were you. The fact is that Toni wasn't out there brandishing Nadal's racquet for him. The fact is that Federer was mad because he blew those match points and he didn't do so because of Toni Nadal.

I don't know if Federer and Nadal like each other. I know they are generally respectful of each other, just like I know that Federer's displeasure comes out from time to time. I don't blame him for it in the LEAST. i don't think he's being a "jerk" or whatever, but I do think it makes their dynamic interesting.

I def think they like each other- I don't think they'd hang out on the practise courts etc if they didn't. When I dislike someone I tend to avoid them. I don't think they are best buddies by any means- but I mean Nadal did ask Federer to play doubles with him a few years back (Fed was already playing with a swiss player tho), they obviously have a friendship of some sorts.

cheryl murray: "Secondly, if Toni nadal were so blatantly coaching his nephew during matches, they would have been busted on it already. They have not been."

Your are correct but there is more to it. During the Monte Carlo event, the BBC and Eurosport and the guys calling the matches on Live Stream commented on it. During one of the matches I watched on TV from Monte Carlo, the referee was turning around in his chair looking at Uncle Toni in an effort to see if he was sending signals. The chair ump has to catch anyone cheating red handed and he could not because he can't turn his head from the point in play to look at someone sitting behind him in the stands. This is as far as it went. I haven't been courtside to see for myself if there was any truth to the allegations made by more than Roger Federer. I can only repeat what was remarked in the press at that time note that I've seen other professional players cheat (i.e. Gael Monfils coach see above) and never get caught. As far as I'm concerned, Nadal is one of the smartest players on the tour for his ability to adjust to a situation (i.e., down 0-4 in a set and then stops making errors). He might have learned how to think from Uncle Toni during his training but his success is based on what he accomplishes during a match. Having said all that, Nadal is not above gamesmanship and he uses it effectively. Same thing goes for Federer. Some people call that cheating, I do not. But no one escapes the juniors without solid gamesmanship credentials. Sometimes they outgrow it, sometimes they don't.

One dimensional is not an insult or a compliment. It is what it is. That you consider one's ability to flatten out a groundstroke and throw in more spin on a serve adds dimension to a game that's essentially won the same way every day of the week remains a point we'll agree to disagree. And, without insult from this side.

Since Nadal and Federer don't speak a common language, I'm hard pressed to believe they are actually friends. Mutual respect, yes. But it seems impossible for it to go much futher given the language barrier.

1fortheroad - perhaps it is simply a matter of getting a different story because we listen to different commentators. Patrick McEnroe insists that Toni was not coaching during that Rome final. I have been to numerous tournaments since then and I've never seen it, but it doesn't mean they didn't do it.

To be fair, I didn't say that flattening out a groundstroke adds dimension, I simply said that he does not play the same on every surface. I think Nadal has been adding layers to his game, though, and I don't consider it one-dimensional any longer. He doesn't, of course, have Federer's flair or arsenal, but then who does? Maybe Andy Murray, but he doesn't have quite the talent of Federer, so the tennis isn't as pretty.

I don't think gamesmanship is cheating either. The glaring that the Nadal does during a match is designed to intimidate. No doubt about it.

Amazing how Nadal's comment before a FO that Federer, as no. 1 in the world and possibly the best ever, is the favourite is dishonest and stupid but a comment from Federer about Nadal being one-dimentional is true and accurate and all his other comments are understandable. Nadal made no excuses about his ailing knee when he lost the 2007 Wimbledon final. Yes, light may have been a factor in 2008 but when talking to the press, one does not make stupid comments like that when one has lost because it's sure to be used it against him. Obviously depends which fan is interpreting.

By the way, Richard Gasquet was also asked by the press after he lost to Andy Murray at Wimbledon if light was factor. Gasquet was gracious enough to reply: "We both played under the same light". No Gasquet-directed attacks were launched after that reply!

Jean: "Yes, light may have been a factor in 2008 but when talking to the press, one does not make stupid comments like that when one has lost because it's sure to be used it against him. Obviously depends which fan is interpreting."

Don't forget that Nadal said had Federer broke him back, he would have called an end to the match that night because he couldn't see either.

Either comment is fair. It's what happened. The images of the match broadcast around the world came from cameras with filters on them so the fans watching on television could not see how dark it was. Both played in darkness and both commented on it after the match. It was an oustanding match that could have gone either way. It went Nadal's way in 2008.

You misinterpret my comments and no, I haven't forgotten what Nadal also said about the light. In my opinion the light was not ideal. Any fool could have seen that. What I'm saying is when you lose, you need to be careful what you say to the press because they are vicious. But even when you win as well from what we have seen. I don't think Federer was telling fibs but people will read it as an excuse. In 2007, Nadal was outplaying Federer in the 5th set but, to use your words, the match went Federer's way in 2007. So he was lucky and I think his comments at the trophy ceremony in 2007 Wimbledon indicates that he thought so himself. The press asked Nadal if his knee was an issue, Nadal said: "Federer played better". The difference, to me, is fairly obvious. You don't hear people calling Gasquet or Nadal sore losers but recently, that has been directed at Federer and more recently to Blake. I think it's unfair to both Blake and Federer, but that's what I mean by needing to be careful. You don't have to lie, but sometimes, being cautious is not be a bad thing. This is just my opinion. I remember some years ago Pete Sampras was ill and he vomited on court. That's all, just vomited because he was sick. Some people accused him of faking the vomiting so he would have an excuse if he lost. Many people have all sorts of opinions and how you feel about a player can affect the opinion.

jean-totally agree. we can look at the issue this way: if nadal had lost this final,would he say something about the light like roger said? i don't think so. andi don't blame roger for saying that but it just shows that their personalities are different.

Nadal has been Federer's Nemisis since he beat him, at the age of 17, in 2004 at Miami. The overall won-lose for all the matches they have played is 18-12 but it was the losses at RG and that iconic Wimbledon final that rankled most with Federer. It was clear from the outset that he found it difficult being beaten by Nadal and I think both of them fed the press with somewhat hypocritical comments. I agree with the many comments that Roger is by far the more articulate. This, together with his command of three languages, leads him into saying far more than Nadal who relies more on giving prepared but brief set responses.

I also think the ridiculous on-court post match interviews with their trite questions should be banned! At best we should not give credence to the replies from players who have just battled and lost a marathon match. I am waiting for the moment when someone gives the normal human response - why dont you get lost..... or something even stronger. The studio interviews are not much better and I dont believe tennis fans really want to watch a top-seed having to explain why they think they lost.

I for one much prefer to read a well-written analysis from an informed commentator and follow the discussions on a site like TennisTalk.

ed - I am inclined to agree with you. I think forcing these guys to talk to the press after they just spent 5 hours losing a match is dreadful. But the ATP needs publicity and they have to get it from Nadal and Federer and the other big guys. They bear the weight of tennis on their shoulders.

ed251137: "I agree with the many comments that Roger is by far the more articulate. This, together with his command of three languages, leads him into saying far more than Nadal who relies more on giving prepared but brief set responses."

Nadal is the Ebby Calvin 'Nuke' LaLoosh of tennis. As much as I appreciate the guy's game, I'm wondering if any player ever ranked #1 in the open era has had less to offer in an interview. No?

"I for one much prefer to read a well-written analysis from an informed commentator and follow the discussions on a site like TennisTalk."

I'd rather hear it directly from Roger - even if he's emotional than leave it to pundits whose agenda you always have to take into consideration.

jean: You misinterpret my comments and no, I haven't forgotten what Nadal also said about the light. In my opinion the light was not ideal. Any fool could have seen that. What I'm saying is when you lose, you need to be careful what you say to the press because they are vicious."

A wise friend once taught me that if someone doesn't understand what you say, it's because you aren't saying it right. The burden is always on the one communicating their idea.

I think it's a bit much to ask professional athletes to behave presidential in post match comments, particularly when they're smarting from an important loss. Would it be a perfect world if they revealed less? Frankly, I'd rather have the messy business thrown in with all the perfection. Combined, it makes a real human being. Federer and Nadal are big boys. They know when to ignore useless criticism.

I love this debate between the two men. Fantastic entry Cheryl!

Have you seen Roger's praise of Nadal diminish, depending on his mood? He will laud Nadal to a degree when he wants to, or when nothing is at stake. The very next breath he will deride him in a way, or downgrade his accomplishments as we saw with the "the lights played a factor in London" statements.

Roger heaps praise on people when it suits him. He reminds me a fair weather type of fan. I was not of the school of people who believed they were ever friends. A mutual respect between the two (maybe?) I see, but even that proposition looks to be a bit of stretch.

If Roger is winning, he appears to be far more gracious. When he is not, the claws come out. The example you brought up about Toni Nadal's supposed coaching was a great one.

Thanks, RocketQueen. What you say is true - Federer's good will only extends so far. It's understandable to some extent - it's always easier to be gracious when things are going well, maybe a little more difficult when the going gets tough. I love that basic human nature plays out so spectacularly in tennis. It's one of my favorite things about the sport.

1fortheroad: "A wise friend once taught me that if someone doesn't understand what you say, it's because you aren't saying it right. The burden is always on the one communicating their idea".
Next time you talk to your wise friend, remind him/her that there is a thing called "language barrier" that exists on this planet, I believe you also mention this above. And don't superficially pick on Nadal adding 'no' to end his sentences or questions. That is very common with Spanish people. Having spent years in Spain and with many Spanish friends, when they speak English to me, they add the 'no' at the end. Don't SPIN things to suit your agenda 1fortheroad, if you're going to have the audacity to accuse CherylMurray of the same! And if you don't like Nadal's interviews, switch your channels or surf a different site. They are not designed to please you alone.
1fortheroad: "I'd rather hear it directly from Roger - even if he's emotional than leave it to pundits whose agenda you always have to take into consideration."
We also heard it from Roger, and the man has certainly said a lot in his interviews!
The fact is that you cannot handle the fact that people have seen through Federer and have noticed his unappealing attitude hidden beneath his fantastic game: that he gives what are seen as excuses when he loses (Aust Open to Novak had mono/glandular fever, French O he was short, sharp and sarcastic to the interviewers, and Wimbledon, yes he mentioned the light but he also said it was all a blur, Rafa played well, but I used to play well too, etc., Olympic schedule was rediculous...). Who on earth suffers glan fever for 2 months and can still play tennis? Take a look an Mario Ancic last year! And whilst light may have been a factor, the gracious thing would have been to say yes I couldn't see but Rafa also played under the same conditions! He should have learnt from Gasquet! Like RocketQueen says above, he is only more gracious when he wins - but I don't totally agree because he has not always been gracious even in winning! But the deep feelings come out when he's lost and frustrated and while that's understandable, it doesn't make him a true and great champion when the tennis is fabulous but the attitude falls short! That is where Nadal appeals to other people. He's not only understanding when Federer has lost to him at French and Wimbledon, but recently he also credits his gold medal to the sportmen of the village who encouraged him and helped him win "even though they don't know it, they helped me to win". Like sisterofnight says above, the two are simply different. Some fans of one do not like the other for obvious reasons (Federe for his attitude, Rafa's gamesmanship, the way they play, whatever). Like you say, the two are big boys but the the fans are also capable of making up their own minds.

That you can take 'one-dimensional' to be a compliment is the biggest spin I've ever come across to date!

I'm struggling to understand what people expect Federer to be. To me, it seems hes said three things that were wrong. Three. And boy do these get leaped upon and taken to the extreme. If I was Federer, I'd be telling the whole lot of you to go jump. Hes a very tolerant, patient man, and when the fighter does come out in him, I love to see it. Of course the countless good things hes done are no longer mentioned. Why? Because hes losing, and the media love a bleeding lamb.

Jean, sorry I'm a health care worker and you have the wrong idea about mono. It affects everyone in different ways. One girl I knew was off school for a year and was ridiculously sick. Anotehr whos entire personality changed and was also sick for a very long time. A boy I knew was in hospital for a day (much like Roger), had two weeks off, and was then back on the soccer field. I've had it and I didn't even take any time off school, had no idea until blood tests told me. It hasn't reccured and I doubt it ever will, its been about 8 years. Remember Roger pulled out of a tourny before the Aussie Open and spent time in hospital (that'd be one seriously well pre-planned excuse). He obviously had a lucky breather for the Aussie Open and it came back again in Dubai (as these things often do when travelling). I don't really care what else you think of Rog, but to suggest he faked an illness is so so so low.

Finally the article I was waiting to see. And my what a unique and colourful debate this has generated among such a diverse group of posters! Kudos. ;)

Mr. Federer seems oh so polished, and well rehearsed. His complex nature is nothing, if not fascinating. Reading over some of his pressers, I couldn't help but be entertained by some of the statements he has made this year, as his reign at #1 has quickly eroded.

This is the man who has said, on more than one occasion, that he knows how to beat Nadal on clay. He also insisted that 2008 was a "good year" for him. I can understand his frustration, but these pat answers make for better comedy than legitimate answers.

I have tremendous respect for his natural talent, and what he has brought to the modern game of tennis, but I have also learned to take Mr. Federer's comments with a grain of salt.

So here we are, with one last major tournament to play in 2008. Many have said that Federer will not defend this title, some even going so far as to say, he will not make it successfully, into week two.

Ms. Murray how do you see this year's USO unfolding for the ATP's recently dethroned king? :)

Jean - It seems to be just three things being discussed, that why I said three. Look I love Federer and he made me interested in the sport for his lovely personality and sportsmanship, nothing you or anyone else says is going to change my mind- only Federer can do that. But when you go and imply he faked mono (which you did) thats gonna annoy me. I havent payed any attention to your other comments because that is a matter of interpretation and opinion, but when it comes to completly misunderstanding a disease, I will correct you, because its fact, not opinion.

it fascinates me how people IDOLIZE Rafa and Roger!
Everyone is so defensively subjective, sometimes to the extent of insulting the others. This just proves how fierce the rivalry between those 2 really is.
In fairness to both Rafa and Roger, we all know that there is some "grudge" inside each of them for the other, and yet they keep on hitting praises for each other. The emotional control is unbelievable. It's like both of them throwing delicate drop shots... so sweet yet lethal!

Dani, you know how to put a girl on the spot, don't you? :D How do I see the US Open playing out for Mr. Federer? That depends on a couple of things. #1 is his draw (obviously), the other is how much that Olympic doubles medal boosts him. His big problem, of course, is that he's lost his air of invincibility. That puts him in a precarious situation from the first match. It would not surprise me to see Mr. Federer out of the tournament by the round of 16. :(

tenstar: welcome back! thanks for the tip. That makes a lot of sense. Will do that it in future. Have just discovered the USO Men's is on the sports channel I dont get unless I fork out a load of dosh. Eurosport are only showing the women's tournament. I have a MacBook which doesn't allow me to watch via my computer - live coverage is only available to PC's. But dont worry, the pins worked before so will keep them handy.

kaitepal: I only said Federer was more articulate in interviews because he has a better command of English, and French for that matter. I have posed the question before - is there a Spanish speaking member on this site who can comment on how Nadal comes across when being interviewed in his own language? My guess is he is probably just as circumspect. I rather think Uncle Toni insists Rafa keeps his comments brief and to the point and does not enter into speculation. If you study his responses, he tends to say the same thing over and over again. A statement of fact. I played well: or i didn't play well.

ed251137- what do you mean when you say eurosport is only showing women's tournament? can i not watch rafa or novak in us open?

Its good that tennis players , crib , complain and resort to gamemanship otherwise tennis bloggers will have to write something meaningful like a game analysis.

sisterofnight: I think it depends where you are on what packages you pay for. I am in France and Eurosport France are only featuring the women's matches. The men's are on Canal+Sport which I think in France is the equivalent of Sky Sports. So if you get Sky I think you are OK. My sister in Spain says she is will get it through Eurosport UK which she receives because she has an English Sky package. All very complicated. I have resisted paying out even more money for the Canal+Sports package as it only normally worth it if you want to watch wall-to-wall Football and Rugby but I think this year I am going to have to succumb!!

Nadal (Catalan native speaker and very fluent in Spanish as a second language) has only English as a 3rd language. So his English needs to improve a lot. His answers at interviews in Catalan and Spanish are far more articulate, but he keeps repeating the same mottoes as in English. If you want to hear anything sharp and deep, you must listen his uncle Toni who has all the brain and the wits a player can receive from his coach.

tfn: thanks for answering my question. Would love to be able to hear Uncle Toni's comments. Wouldn't mind meeting him either - he is seriously dishy if you are a woman of a certain age!!! I love watching his reactions during the match. He must be bursting with pride now.

He doesn't seem to get enough credit from the for the amazing way he has coached and steered Nadal to No.1 There is a certain sniffiness from the pros and tennis pundits who regard him as an amateur coach. And I dont often hear TV commentators praising his skills. Without doubt he is Nadal's most dangerous weapon.

I didnt see the Rome match so cant comment on the coaching accusation. Occasionally Nadal does look up at him as if he is seeking some reassurance to steady him during a sticky patch, or as if he were saying 'sorry about that' when he has made a bad error. Have never seen anything which could be construed as coaching though.

It's Yuri Sharapov. -pov for men and -pova for women. See Safina and Safin.

"His darling daughter"? There was nothing darling about Maria's background and upbringing. They had it harder than most. Her father had to take great risks to give his daughter opportunities that he himself never had. And Maria worked very very hard. There is nothing darling about her. She could break your head. Easily.

The way ATP regulations stand, a coach opening his mouth at all is strictly speaking "coaching". What Toni Nadal did in Rome that Fededer objected to had nothing to do with giving instructions from the bench as Federer tried to make out, he was just shouting "Vamos Rafa!" a bit too loudly and too often for Roger's liking. The "coaching" rules as they stand obviously need redefining as it is ridiculous that the only people in the stadium who are not allowed to cheer their player on are the coaches themselves.

On the language issue, I'm a Spanish speaker so have the pleasure of listening to and reading Nadal in Spanish but I also know he is the star turn at press conferences in English - the dry (usually error filled) transcript doesn't do his communication skills justice - and any member of the regular tennis press core will tell you there is more substance in one grin, shrug or lifted eyebrow from Nadal than in all Federer's bland verbosity.

Re: RocketQueen's comment: "If Roger is winning, he appears to be far more gracious. When he is not, the claws come out."

Very astute observation. Best example for me was during Wimbledon '07, when Roger demanded that they turn off Hawkeye because he was losing the challenges!

Roger has been able to hide his true emotions for such a long time because he speaks like he plays tennis -- smooth as silk. I'm pleased to see that there are so many more people who are able to separate Roger the tennis player -- physically dominant on the court -- from Roger the human -- emotionaly immature, but spared from exposure because he was always winning. The true measure of a "man" is how he responds under pressure; in small ways, Roger let's us see who he used to be on court -- the tantrum-throwing teenager -- and who, at his core, he remains.

Re: kaitepai' comment: "All I know is that everyone makes excuses."

Really? Everyone? I've never heard Rafa make an excuse (for losing) for as long as I've followed his career (four years). There's a big difference between "belief" and "truth." You might believe that everyone makes excuses; the truth is that those who make excuses for their failures, like Roger, are experiencing a lag between their physical prowess and emotional maturity. Their high egos make it impossible for them to admit that they just might not be as good as they think they are!

one more thing..the discussion is about roger-rafa relationship..why are we drawing character-sketches here???? what you guys are stating are just personal opinions..no facts.

I agree with Kanhavi, to call Roger emotionally immature is a bit harsh- its like you know the guy or something. Roger's won that award for best sportsmanship that is voted by players on the tour at least once, so hes obviously a pretty nice guy. Obviously I could be wrong, I don't know him either, but its gonna take a little bit more than a comment like there was bad light for me to change my opinion. Just face it, the good things Rog says about Rafa outweight the bad about 50:1.

As for Nadal making excuses... just because he doesn't say them in press conferences (and lets face it, what does he say to the press exactly) doesn't mean he doesn't make them. And anyway, he hasn't had what Federer's had yet, when hes on his way back down, lets see what he says then. Not to long ago people were praising Roger, now it seems they are all hating on him.

And they are all personal opinions on these guys, I actually like Nadal, its just his fans are really putting me off him right now. There seems to be alot of them all of a sudden, and boy are they vicious.

Well, I took a very long time to read through all your comments in the two parts. It's quite funny how some people are so supportive of some players and are going crazy about the whole thing. Although I'm Swiss, I also don't like Federer and I agree with many people here who have obviously followed Federer closely. I have read and listened to his comments too and although his achievements have made this country proud, he is not a great sportsman in my view. He is too haughty and overbearing and so often gives excuses when he loses a very important match it is almost shameful. It seems to be a habit of giving excuses nowadays. Some of us are ashamed of his attitude although I'm sure most of the country is proud. I pray Warinka does not follow such a poor example.

i'm sad you feel so remi...why do we take genuine reasons for excuses???? and please give him a break..he's only human..he's humble,nice..maybe a bit sulky when he doesnt win..but thats okay! You dont have to like him..thats your choice.but its funny what a relatively bad year can do to a much admired player...and its funny how people behave..as if they are the paragons of perfection...get a grip..its okay to not like someone...but to speak such things is really unfair..even if you put that under the term 'opinion'..why can't we talk of good things?..there is no need to make a big issure of small things..he has many great qualities that do overshadow his bad ones.

This has nothing to do with having a bad year or a good year. You can have a very bad year but you can still lose like a champion. He has not lost like a champion. You have missed the point completely. You think people suddenly don't like him because he's having a bad year. People don't like him because of his haughty attitude, not because he is having a bad year. No one is making big issues of small things. You just don't like the fact that there are people who don't like a player that you blindly worship as god. You should do your research and read up on Roger's interviews from last few years before you pass judgement on fans because i) you don't understand the point at all, and ii) you glory worship him that you can't accept the truth.

can u update previous federer's us open scores 3rd round

i have very much done so remi...and i do not blindly worship anyone...its you people who are determined to take every word of his as arrogane...and crap...the typical federer-haters who will make a big issue out of small things..federer has very much been the champion he always was..its okay to be a bit sulky..he's only human..as if you people are something very great...and its you who cannot accept the truth..because you are too adamnt to ignore al that has been said even this year about federer..he's a great guy./.if you dont like him thats your problem..your calling him arrogant dosent change the truth..ive watched federer for last four years and i can say he's a great guy and deserves all the respect he gets.

you people act as if you are soooooooo perfect that you can come out and pick out the smallest faults in someone and make a great deal out of it..get a life...if you cannot appreciate federer ,fine..but there is no need to throw dirt on his professional grace...he says what he feels and there's nothing wrong in that..atleat better than being diplomatic...and please for gods sake..can we discuss about the federer-nadal relationship and stop drawing character sketches??

i know federer was a hot-head..but i think he has brought about great changes in his attitude...that wont change no matter what people or 'haters' say