Jelena Jankovic fires broadside at Roger Federer

Roger Federer should concentrate on his own career rather than criticising others, Serb Jelena Jankovic said on Tuesday after being irked by the Swiss master's unflattering verdict on her number one world ...

[wetgq]

I agree with the female tennis star, federer seems to be able to pass judgement as if he is a god to the tennis world.... but as most of the normal people know... on any given day the ball can get the best of you...

[aleksandra]

roger go jump u think ur the best
n saying things about my serb novak for changing raquets he is stil the same guy n plays the same remember last year who won u in semi-finals NOVAK DJOKOVIC.and you were world number 1 n jelena n serb queen had a injury last year and made it to the semi-finals n she was number 3 in the world so go jump roger federer.I LOVE YOU NOVAK DJOKOVIC,JELENA JANKOVIC AND FERNENDO VERDASCO N SERBIA.....

[tennisman89]

I'm sorry I have to disagree. When you have broken as many records as Roger Federer is such short time. I think you get the right to do stuff like that. I'm not saying it was a nice thing, or the right thing. But think about it. He has a point. When there are people out there that have won grand slams how can you be above them if you haven't. Put it this way you are in a tournament you have won many times. Some new guy comes in and gets to the finals, loses, then takes your spot. How would that feel to you.

[TMD]

tennisman89 wrote:

I'm sorry I have to disagree. When you have broken as many records as Roger Federer is such short time. I think you get the right to do stuff like that.

Nadal has broken many tennis records. You don't see him getting into other player's business.

.

I'm not saying it was a nice thing, or the right thing.

You just said he has the right to do this kind of stuff. Either he does, or he doesn't. Make up your mind.

.

But think about it. He has a point. When there are people out there that have won grand slams how can you be above them if you haven't.

Fortunately, the points system doesn't work that way. Just because someone has won a Slam before, doesn't give them the right to always be ranked ahead of someone else who hasn't.

What if Player-A won a Slam 2 years ago, and Player-B, who has never won a Slam, made it to the finals of the last 2 tournaments in a row. Should Player-A be ranked above Player-B. Of course not.

.

Put it this way you are in a tournament you have won many times. Some new guy comes in and gets to the finals, loses, then takes your spot. How would that feel to you.

It would tell me that either I haven't done very well in the tournaments I've played in, or that the other guy has done much better than me in the tournaments he's played in, or some combination of the two. If that's the case, then the other guy should be ranked higher.

The number of Slams you've won in your career has nothing to do with this.

[Paul]

Jankovic is annoyed because Federer has hit a raw nerve: i.e. he's right.

Federer wasn't making a personal attack on Jankovic; he was merely making the point that a player (whether that is Jankovic or anyone else)cannot be considered a worthy number 1 unless they've won a slam. That is a fair point, even if the ranking system allows it. Methinks Jankovic doth protest too much.

And let's face it, since Henin's retirement the women's game has become a bit of a joke. Apart from Serena, when she brings her 'A' game and Venus at Wimbledon, the new crop of young pretenders is wholly unconvincing. And if you think I'm being sexist, both Navratilova and Virginia Wade, have made this point, expressing their embarassment at the uncompetitive nature of the Aussie Open women's final.

And as for Nadal keeping his opinions to himself, that is nonsense: he has vociferously complained both about doping procedures and the number of hard-court tournaments. Federer hasn't. I happen to believe that BOTH players are entitled to their opinions, because they are the two best players in the world and do a lot for the ATP council. If Jankovic can't handle the truth, that is her problem.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

Jankovic is annoyed because Federer has hit a raw nerve: i.e. he's right.

Jankovic is annoyed because of the reasons she gave. It's not Federer's place to complain about the RANKING of another player. They achieved that ranking using the same system that kept him as number one for weeks after he had lost the French and Wimbledon to the same player, who was number two at the time. He didn't complain when it benefited him.

Federer is just afraid of losing ground to other up and coming players who haven't won any slams.

.

Federer wasn't making a personal attack on Jankovic; he was merely making the point that a player (whether that is Jankovic or anyone else)cannot be considered a worthy number 1 unless they've won a slam. That is a fair point, even if the ranking system allows it. Methinks Jankovic doth protest too much.

And since when did Federer decide who was "worthy" to be number one?

The point system is precisely the way it is to prevent what Federer is talking about. A player should not be able to retain the number one ranking through inactivity just because they have won a slam sometime in the past.

If another player is doing well, but not winning tournaments, and a former champion is tanking, the player doing well should be able to rise above them. That is, of course, unless you think it's ok for Serena Williams to gain the number one ranking after winning the Australian and Wimbledon, and then not play another tournament all year, and remain number one.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

And let's face it, since Henin's retirement the women's game has become a bit of a joke. Apart from Serena, when she brings her 'A' game and Venus at Wimbledon, the new crop of young pretenders is wholly unconvincing.

Henin's retirement didn't change anything. She had her ups and downs just like the Williamses. Women's tennis hasn't had a Navratilova or Graf in a very long time.

.

And if you think I'm being sexist, both Navratilova and Virginia Wade, have made this point, expressing their embarassment at the uncompetitive nature of the Aussie Open women's final.

Federer would be perfectly happy if there was one female player winning 90% of the tournaments and slams. He doesn't like the fact that any five women can win a slam on any given day. This doesn't mean none of the five are "worthy" of holding the number one ranking. It just means the level of talent has risen in the top twenty to the point that you can't predict from one tournament to the next who will win. I would think this is GOOD for tennis.

All of the major sports, college and pro, are trying to achieve parity. Eliminating predictability and dominance by any one entity is considered a good thing. Fans of different players and/or teams have a reasonable chance of watching their favorite player/team win championships. That's what generates interest and greater fan participation, which, in turn, generates more revenue for the sport.

As far as Navratilova lamenting the state of women's tennis, I think she has forgotten some of the finals she played in and Graf played in. Many were not the least bit competitive or close.

.

And as for Nadal keeping his opinions to himself, that is nonsense: he has vociferously complained both about doping procedures and the number of hard-court tournaments. Federer hasn't.

Federer didn't start all this complaining and calling players out until he lost his number one ranking. His entire attitude and demeanor has drasticly changed. Nadal has NEVER called another player out, and his complaint about the anti-doping procedures was voiced by many other players long before he did.

.

I happen to believe that BOTH players are entitled to their opinions, because they are the two best players in the world and do a lot for the ATP council. If Jankovic can't handle the truth, that is her problem.

I would say the same to Federer. You can't be number one forever, and complaining about other players climbing that mountain only diminishes you in many people's eyes. If it was fair for you, it's fair for everyone.

[Paul]

Henin's retirement didn't change anything. She had her ups and downs just like the Williamses.
Henin's retirement removed the one person who can consistently challenge Serena at her best in the slams. As for Henin's up and downs, they were due to illness and marital problems, not to limited talent as is the case for a number of the so-called top female players I could mention.
Women's tennis hasn't had a Navratilova or Graf in a very long time.
My point precisely.
Federer would be perfectly happy if there was one female player winning 90% of the tournaments and slams. He doesn't like the fact that any five women can win a slam on any given day.
I'm not sure Federer particularly cares whether there is one dominant female player or not; his point is very simple: in the women's or the men's game, if you reach the no. 1 ranking without having won a slam you are a less worthy no.1 than if you had won a slam. It's a pretty easy concept to grasp.
It just means the level of talent has risen in the top twenty to the point that you can't predict from one tournament to the next who will win. I would think this is GOOD for tennis.
If only that were true. The reality is that no one woman player is good enough (or in Serena's case consistently motivated enough) to emerge from the pack and assert any kind of dominance. What generates revenue and fan interest is high quality, exciting matches and fierce rivalries. Right now, we have that in abundance in men's tennis, but not women's. The Australian Open is a perfect illustration of this very point: Verdasco, who is barely in the top 10, can hit 95 winners and 20 aces and still not reach the final, and the Nadal/federer match was another tightly contested 5-set thriller. Do I even need to bother comparing these two high quality, gripping matches to the women's final, or to any other women's match in the Aussie Open for that matter?

[Paul]

As far as Navratilova lamenting the state of women's tennis, I think she has forgotten some of the finals she played in and Graf played in. Many were not the least bit competitive or close.

They were vastly outnumbered by the twenty plus closely contested finals that made their rivalries with Evert or Seles some of the most compelling and high quality of all time. Are you seriously comparing legends like Graf and Navratilova to the likes of Kusnetsova, Ivanovic, Jankovic and Safina?
I find that a little disingenuous, to say the least.

Nadal has NEVER called another player out, and his complaint about the anti-doping procedures was voiced by many other players long before he did.

Nadal complained about the new doping procedures as soon as they came out. The only other player to complain was Murray. Federer didn't complain and the same rules apply to him. You also rather conveniently overlook Nadal's complaints about the number of hard-court tournaments. These comments are completely SELF-INTERESTED because hard-courts are the most punishing on his body. I'm sure Federer and a host of other players would benefit from less clay-court tournaments, but they don't complain about the schedule; they just get on with it. Nadal speaks out when it suits his own interests.

I would say the same to Federer. You can't be number one forever, and complaining about other players climbing that mountain only diminishes you in many people's eyes. If it was fair for you, it's fair for everyone.

Federer has always been consistent and crystal-clear in his views on the merit of achieving the no. 1 ranking. Even BEFORE he lost his no. 1 ranking to Nadal, he said that if he were to lose the ranking it would be to someone who had been consistently dominant and won a number of grand slams. Even BEFORE he was demoted to no. 2 he named Nadal as his most worthy successor; this was at the time that Djokovic was shouting the odds saying he was going to take Federer down etc. This completely disproves your 'Federer is now a grumpy old man' theory. I'm sure he is unhappy at losing his no. 1 ranking, but he has also explicitly stated that Nadal deserves it. Federer is a meritocrat: he believes that people need to assert some kind of dominance before they can be considered a worthy no.1: Nadal has now done that; Jankovic hasn't.

[Paul]

Henin's retirement didn't change anything. She had her ups and downs just like the Williamses.

It changed a lot: it removed the one rival who was capable of consistently challenging Serena at her best.Henin's ups and downs were due to illness and marital problems, not limited talent as in the case of some of the so-called top women's players.

Women's tennis hasn't had a Navratilova or Graf in a very long time.
My point precisely.

It just means the level of talent has risen in the top twenty to the point that you can't predict from one tournament to the next who will win. I would think this is GOOD for tennis.

If only that were true. The reality is that no one woman player is good enough (or in Serena's case consistently motivated enough) to emerge from the pack and assert any kind of dominance. What generates revenue and fan interest is high quality, exciting matches and fierce rivalries.
Right now, we have that in abundance in men's tennis, but not women's. The Australian Open is a perfect illustration of this very point: Verdasco, who is barely in the top 10, can hit 95 winners and 20 aces and still not reach the final, and the Nadal/federer match was another tightly contested 5-set thriller. Do I even need to bother comparing these two high quality, gripping matches to the women's final, or to any other women's match in the Aussie Open for that matter?

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

Henin's retirement removed the one person who can consistently challenge Serena at her best in the slams.

Except, of course, her sister. Just because there is no Navratilova or Graf playing today doesn't mean the quality of women's tennis is bad. It just means there is more parity today than has existed in a long time, and more opportunities for other players to step up and become familiar faces on the world stage. That's not a bad thing, and can only bring more fans to the game.

.

As for Henin's up and downs, they were due to illness and marital problems, not to limited talent as is the case for a number of the so-called top female players I could mention.

Well, I must admit, I don't have the same eye for talent that you seem to possess. I've always thought that the top ten female players had a tremendous amout of talent. Whether they are winning tournaments is a whole different subject.

And, BTW, using Henin's personal distractions as an excuse for her losing matches is just as suspect as using Serena's personal distractions as an excuse for her losses. Many of Henin's losses were a result of being outplayed, for whatever the reason.

.

I'm not sure Federer particularly cares whether there is one dominant female player or not; his point is very simple: in the women's or the men's game, if you reach the no. 1 ranking without having won a slam you are a less worthy no.1 than if you had won a slam. It's a pretty easy concept to grasp.

I think my point was equally as easy to grasp - Just because you've won a slam doesn't mean you are a better number 1 than someone who hasn't, and Federer is not the one to decide who is worthy or not. That, ultimately, comes down to the retired greats, sportswriters, and the public, not the guy who just slipped from #1 and hears footsteps.

.

The reality is that no one woman player is good enough (or in Serena's case consistently motivated enough) to emerge from the pack and assert any kind of dominance.

How much more does Serena have to win before you consider her "dominant". She already has won two gold medals, a career slam in singles and doubles, a non-calendar slam, has won a slam on every surface, is the #1 career prize winner for a woman regardless of the sport, and is currently the women's number one ranked player. I think that's already more than enough to be considered "consistent" and "dominant".

.

What generates revenue and fan interest is high quality, exciting matches and fierce rivalries. Right now, we have that in abundance in men's tennis, but not women's. The Australian Open is a perfect illustration of this very point: Verdasco, who is barely in the top 10, can hit 95 winners and 20 aces and still not reach the final, and the Nadal/federer match was another tightly contested 5-set thriller. Do I even need to bother comparing these two high quality, gripping matches to the women's final, or to any other women's match in the Aussie Open for that matter?

Well, make up your mind. Do you want dominance, or do you want fierce rivalries, which implies both parties winning. Serena beats everyone but her sister, consistently. Yet, you don't consider her dominant or consistent. Many of her matches are close, with high-quality tennis played by both parties. This, apparently, is not to your satisfaction, either. You are a hard person to please.

Fans don't consider close, high quality matches between the top ranked players to be any more exciting than matches that include their favorite players, regardless of the quality of the match. If you think I'm making this up then explain why anyone watches Andy Ram or Shahar Pe'er play.

Nationalism and personal favorites always trumps quality and rivalries. In order to grow the number of fan's "favorites", more players have to win. That's called parity. That's the future of tennis, and most other professional sports.

[TMD]

Paul wrote:

Are you seriously comparing legends like Graf and Navratilova to the likes of Kusnetsova, Ivanovic, Jankovic and Safina? I find that a little disingenuous, to say the least./QUOTE]

I am comparing the lopsided scores in finals, which is what we were talking about. I mentioned Navratilova because she was one of those who were complaining, even though she played in her fair share of dogs.

.
[QUOTE]Nadal complained about the new doping procedures as soon as they came out. The only other player to complain was Murray. Federer didn't complain and the same rules apply to him.

The players have known for quite some time about the new doping procedures and have been complaining since the new rules were first announced.

.

You also rather conveniently overlook Nadal's complaints about the number of hard-court tournaments. These comments are completely SELF-INTERESTED because hard-courts are the most punishing on his body.

Nadal has made humble suggestions about the length of the tennis season, and the number of tournaments, and their accompanying surfaces, as have many other players. To imply that Federer doesn't complain about just about every thing under the sun is laughable. A simple Google search brings back hundreds of hits.

.

I'm sure Federer and a host of other players would benefit from less clay-court tournaments, but they don't complain about the schedule; they just get on with it. Nadal speaks out when it suits his own interests.

Most players actually prefer grass and clay to hard courts because it's easier on their bodies. Hard courts may be faster, but it causes injuries and shortens careers. Many players have complained about that and the length of the tennis season. Please don't make it sound like Nadal is the only player who has ever mentioned these things.

.

Federer has always been consistent and crystal-clear in his views on the merit of achieving the no. 1 ranking. Even BEFORE he lost his no. 1 ranking to Nadal, he said that if he were to lose the ranking it would be to someone who had been consistently dominant and won a number of grand slams. Even BEFORE he was demoted to no. 2 he named Nadal as his most worthy successor; this was at the time that Djokovic was shouting the odds saying he was going to take Federer down etc. This completely disproves your 'Federer is now a grumpy old man' theory.

If you are seriously trying to say that Federer's interviews have not become more sarcastic and contentious since he lost his #1 ranking, then I would say we have been listening to completely different interviews. He doesn't like having to answer questions about his ranking, his inability to beat Nadal, and his perceived decline. He is rarely gracious during these interviews. Nadal had to endure those kind of interviews for the two years while he trailed Federer and never once lost his temper or patience.

.

I'm sure he is unhappy at losing his no. 1 ranking, but he has also explicitly stated that Nadal deserves it. Federer is a meritocrat: he believes that people need to assert some kind of dominance before they can be considered a worthy no.1: Nadal has now done that; Jankovic hasn't.

According to Federer, not the WTA or its point system. Guess which one counts.