quote:
but it's because he wants to win so bad, and if you took away that edge I don't think he'd have been in the top 10 for the better part of a decade.
you use that defense for him....then you take a dig at the guy who's the sole reason Andy probably isn't a 5-8 time grand slam winner with this...
quote:
I'll take Roddick over a guy who wins umpteen majors and then cries like it's the end of the world when Nadal beats him.
You don't think Roger breaking down and crying when it appeared his reign was coming to a screeching halt just shy of breaking the record is a sign of him wanting to win so bad, but *****ing at reporters is?
hmm...agree to disagree.
I do agree with your point that those reporters are the sames ones who love him because he gives the answers he does, during his highs and his lows. However, I'm of the school of thought that at this point in his career he needs to stop attacking others when discussing his poor play, and respect the process.
I'll also add that today was by no means one of his memorable poor attitude moments, but it just immediately served as a reminder for why I don't overly root for him sometimes. Also, the question he called stupid wasn't even as bad as the answer he gave where he mocked the reporter he had him repeat a pretty fair question of "what, if any reasons for the poor hitting in the first few sets?" that he answered "if I knew something I would have fixed it early in the match" in a very mocking tone. It's something that could be as simple as "didn't have my return game today" or "couldn't get a feel for the backhand" or even "nothing that I could tell, my opponent was just beating me out there"...but instead he gives a pisspoor answer.
[This message has been edited by J Peterman (edited 6/28/2010 5:58p).]