The second part of my conversation with Katrina, proprietor of the Querido Rafa fan blog. You can read the first part here.
Hi Steve,
First, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my rather word-heavy rhapsody on Rafa yesterday; I appreciate that you waded through the excessiveness and managed to decipher some meaning.
Are there hardcore Andy Murray fans? I’m sure there are (Judy, for example) because that’s one of the delights of tennis, I think. Although Rafa, Roger, and Novak lead the way, there are pockets of loyal fandom for a lot of different players—from slightly obscure Top-10ers like Ferrer, Berdych, and Fish, to veterans like Ljubicic and Ferrero, to relative newcomers like Dolgopolov and Raonic. Rumor has it there are even hardcore Lukas Lacko fans.
It does indeed seem irrational—that’s why I had thought about some of these issues before, because I was trying to figure out what the heck had happened to me and how/when I had become this person whose day is, for a while, at least, ruined when this guy from Spain who I’ve never met loses to this guy from Serbia who I’ve never met in a tennis match being played on the other side of the world. And while I agree that supporting a tennis player often has a more personal, emotional element to it than supporting a hometown team, perhaps it’s not so different. What I mean is that whenever I feel a little “weird” for being so “into” Rafa and tennis, I remind myself that intense sports fandom (the kind that, for example, causes grown men to paint their faces, drape several flags over themselves, jump up and down for 2 hours, cry like babies, etc.)—whether it be for football, baseball, basketball, or, soccer—is fairly common. So, in a way, the irrationality is universal. This comforts me.
Now, I have to say, I think your point about fans of one player lacking empathy for their favorite’s rival is completely…accurate. Darn. It’s true; I have a hard time with Novak. In my defense, I wasn’t all that fond of him even prior to his winning streak against Rafa. I try to see his side, I try to consider how he feels, I…who am I kidding? I don’t, really. And I’m sure Novak is very upset about this. Roger is a different case for me (and a lot of Rafa fans, I think). To this day, I involuntarily smile every time I see him walk out on court. And I agree—with the exception of some slight tetchiness with umpires (and that’s really nitpicking, considering the behavior of certain other players on a regular basis), there’s very little to object to when Roger’s on court. I think Roger is most polarizing in the press, which is not even entirely his fault. He’s made some head-scratching, ungracious-sounding comments over the years and displayed other non-perfect traits/behaviors (the nerve!), and fans of other players, fans who have noticed this but nevertheless observed Roger being portrayed as a paragon of perfection again and again while their favorite players are routinely criticized, even ridiculed, in press—well, they don’t like that. Which brings me to the next point.
What bothers me most about coverage of Rafa in the media is that journalists seem to go after him in a way that they don’t go after other top players, namely Roger and, recently, Novak. It’s not that I think either Roger or Novak deserve to be eviscerated in the press; but, more balanced coverage, coverage that acknowledges some of their foibles and less graceful moments, would be nice. Last year, a lot of journalists were more than happy to make excuses for Novak when needed, and gloss over things that didn’t reflect so well on him.
For example, Novak withdrew mid-tournament from Paris after collecting a sizeable bonus—not exactly a move befitting a world No. 1, in my opinion—and the consensus seemed to be, “He’s earned the right to do whatever he wants to do; besides, he’s exhausted!” Meanwhile, Rafa withdrew from Paris before the tournament started, needing rest (Rafa did play the Asian swing, after all, unlike a couple of other guys I can think of…), and then was criticized for having the audacity to visit EuroDisney during his time off. Novak had a poor showing at the WTFs last year; again, the consensus veered toward, “After his year, who wouldn’t have a let-down?!” Rafa had a poor showing at the WTFs and was, according to many, done. He’d lost his passion; he was a shell of his former self, don’t expect much from him in the future, etc.
Again, it’s not just the habitual negative-leaning coverage of Rafa that bothers me; it’s the disparity between his coverage and that of Roger and Novak. I understand it, to a certain degree; these are “the stories” at the moment—Novak as the new star (and who wants to rain on the new star’s parade?) and Rafa as the “struggling” one (which makes him especially vulnerable to criticism). Still though, for whatever reason, the negative-leaning coverage seemed to get out of hand at the end of last year and the beginning of this one. Everywhere I looked, there were pointed barbs and veiled insults and not-so-veiled insults aimed at Rafa: Rafa whines too much; Rafa is always injured, which is his own fault; Rafa’s a greedy hypocrite because he complains about the schedule but plays exhibitions; Rafa is selfish because he wants the Davis Cup format changed; Rafa is a total failure because he can’t beat that unbeatable guy; Rafa’s probably going to go out early in Australia because both his body and spirit are broken; Rafa is losing his hair. Which brings me to my next point.
Hate is a strong word, Steve, hate is a strong word. It is true that there have been a couple of recent pieces by you about Rafa (“Back to the Struggle”; “Slow Burn”) that I did not 100% enjoy. I possibly included “light criticisms” of them in my posts, even. I think what irked me most was that a.) They came on top of a bunch of other critical/gibe-ridden articles by many other journalists and b.) Like a lot of those other articles, the second one especially seemed to project an air of slight condescension toward Rafa.
This is another thing that bothers me, in general, in the coverage of Rafa—it’s not always completely respectful. It’s not that I’m humorless or think making fun of Rafa is “off-limits”; honestly, his often-unintentional hilarity is one of my favorite parts about him. But sometimes I feel it goes a bit too far and again, is just extremely inequitable compared to the treatment of his peers. Still, even when I disagree, I do think tennis fans are lucky to have so many different writers and media outlets covering tennis year-round, keeping us entertained, and doing, overall, a fantastic job. (And the non-fantastic jobs are good blog fodder, so really, it’s win-win.)
Katrina,
You can still manage a smile when you see Roger walk on court. That’s good—you haven’t totally abandoned him. Though I know you liked Federer before, and never loved Djokovic, I wonder if your current feelings about Roger (fondness) and Novak (the opposite of fondness) might have just a little bit to do with their recent won-loss records against Rafa? Along those same lines, I’ve noticed that many of Federer’s fans share a liking for David Ferrer, but not, obviously, for his countryman Nadal. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that may have something to do with the fact that Nadal has beaten Federer 18 more times than Ferrer has. I think losing has a way of humanizing even a hated star. I’m always amazed when I root hard against someone or some team, and then when they finally do lose I feel a little bad for them; they’re not the enemy anymore. I wonder why I got so worked up in the first place.
You busted me for mentioning Rafa’s thinning hair recently. That was a mistake, a line fit for the comments section rather than a column itself. It’s interesting to read your thoughts on the coverage of Nadal in general. It reminds me of a lot of the comments that Federer’s fans make on mine and Pete Bodo’s blogs. There’s a sense among them that he’s held to a different standard, especially when it comes to losing and to his post-loss comments. To them, Nadal is the one who always gets a pass from the press, Nadal is the one who is always called “humble” and a "fighter," while their guy is portrayed as arrogant and so talented that he never has to fight.
I don’t know which of them has it easier or harder from the press, to be honest. Either group of fans can make a strong case, which I guess goes to show that we can see the same event or read the same words with completely different sets of eyes. What I do know is that Federer and Nadal are well respected by the vast majority of the regular tennis media, though each has a few detractors—Nadal, I think, has a couple more than Federer. Either way, their press conferences are always must-sees, and they usually leave most of us thinking more highly of them than we did when they walked into the room. As for condescension toward Rafa, I think most tennis writers also like his unintentional hilarity, and don’t mean to make him sound goofy or childlike—at least, not goofy or childlike in a bad way. At the same time, journalists look for the negative. Rafa criticizing Roger is always going to be more of a story than Rafa explaining why he’s hitting his backhand better or raising money for his charity.
I hadn’t thought of Djokovic getting something of a pass last year, until you mentioned it. It’s true, I think there was some reluctance to come down on him for his poor play and lack of desire during the fall season. It seemed overly harsh to call into question his historic year after he had played so well for so long. But what comes around goes around. When you’re invincible on court, you tend to be invincible in the press; any signs of faltering from Djokovic over the next nine months may bring a more negative slant to his coverage. And amid the praise last year, there was the (misleading) story of his time inside the CVAC egg. I’m sure Djokovic’s fans could come up with a dozen more unfair things that were said or written about him. Our favorite players are like our kids—we protect them, and try to see the reasons behind their flaws, even as the rest of the world condemns them for having them.
You asked if I had a favorite Nadal moment. For some reason my mind goes back to the final in Madrid in 2005, when it was an indoor tournament. Nadal was down two sets to love to Ivan Ljubicic, but he came all the way back, to the Spanish crowd’s delight. These were the days of his leaping fist-pumps, and he did a lot of them. He came out to return serve late in the fifth and started doing a shadow-boxing dance at the back of the court, with his back turned to the net. He was in his own world, filling the place up with energy. That was the early Rafa, a unique player and personality, something new for tennis. He would only get better, but that’s the version of him I’ll probably remember the most.
Thanks for talking with me, Katrina. I hope all the players have fans as passionate and articulate as you are.
PS: Judging from my email inbox and Twitter reply list, there are indeed hardcore Andy Murray fans out there. Hopefully we'll find out why in this column soon. I'm not sure about Judy, though; maybe she and I can discuss her whole Feliciano Lopez thing someday.