What do you think?
Rate this book
Federer and Me: A Story of Obsession
For much of the past decade, William Skidelsky has had an all-consuming devotion to Roger Federer, whom he considers to be the greatest and most graceful tennis player of all time. In this mesmerizing memoir, Skidelsky ponders what it is about the Swiss star that transfixes him and countless others. Skidelsky dissects the wonders of Federer's forehand, reflects on his rivalry with Nadal, revels in his victories, and relives his most crushing defeats. But in charting his obsession, Skidelsky also weaves his own past into a captivating story that explores the evolution of modern tennis, the role of beauty in sports, and the psychology of fandom. Thought-provoking and beautifully written, Federer and Me is a frank, funny, and touching account of one fan's life.
Audio CD
Published May 3, 2016
20 people are currently reading
189 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
February 24, 2019
Fantastic. If you are a Federer fan who gets a small heart palpitation at the very mention of Rafael Nadal, then you will love this book. Deserves 5 stars!
January 7, 2025
This book is obviously intended for a somewhat niche audience; if you're not a big tennis/Roger Federer fan, it's probably not for you.
I, however, happen to be a huge fan of both tennis AND Roger Federer, so I quite enjoyed it. I especially loved Skidelsky's exploration of the Fed/Nadal rivalry, and his honest (albeit often begrudging) acknowledgment of Roger's limitations and the ways in which he's seemed to fall short of the astronomical expectations many held for him based on his early career dominance.
My reasons for withholding that fifth star are twofold: first, while I loved the chapters specifically devoted to Federer: his development, rivalries, style-of-play and fan appeal, I was less interested in hearing about Skidelsky's own coming-of-age experiences, and they occupied a fair portion of the text. Second, my age-old gripe with books written about athletes who are still playing: they are incomplete and (often) inaccurate. In this case, for instance, Skidelsky concludes his book and epilogue in 2015-16, seemingly resigned to the fact that a declining Roger Federer in his twilight years will never win another major, regain the #1 ranking, or best his old foe, Nadal. But Federer won 2 slams in 2017 and another (so far) in 2018, and he has absolutely smoked Nadal in each of their last several meetings. Perhaps Skidelsky should consider writing a sequel with retractions regarding the King's supposed fall from grace. Because if you check the rankings today, Roger's on top.
Favorite quotes:
"Roger Federer made tennis beautiful again. And he did this while playing a version of the power baseline game. It's as if he bottled the gracefulness that belonged to the sport's earlier eras and decanted it into the modern style."
"Federer's forehand is the most beautiful shot in the history of tennis. And it may also be the most effective."
"This conception of beauty is relevant to Federer, too. Virtually everything about the Swiss seems balanced, in proportion. His body has no Nadalesque asymmetries. His tennis is frequently described as 'complete.' He is equally happy at the net or the baseline. He can defend brilliantly as well as attack, and switch very quickly between the two. He uses an equivalent grip (modified Eastern) on both wings and even his backhand and forehand volleys look strangely alike, sharing the same distinctive high back lift. He is literally balanced too, in the sense that he falls over less than other players. And the concept applies, more generally, to his personality--to the way, for instance, he combines playing professional tennis with being a husband and father and how he never seems stressed or pushed for time."
"After all, his tennis is often described as perfect. When people say this, they don't simply mean that his game is flawless. The sentiment is more active: they are imputing a moral quality to his tennis, suggesting that he somehow plays the game as it should be played. What is perfect, after all, must also be right. This helps make sense of the overblown, disproportionate pain committed fans such as myself so often experience when Federer loses. Our trauma is not mainly, or only, caused by the fact that we feel sorry for him; it is more to do with our sense that some fundamental wrong, some injustice, has been perpetrated."
[on Skidelsky's own preoccupation with Federer]
"And because I've spent so much time doing all this, there are lots of other things that I haven't done, things that might be said to have more inherent value, such as reading books or earning money or putting on washes or having sex, things that--had I done them--might have caused me to be regarded, and to regard myself, as a more successful, rounded person. Yet I'm not sure that any of this really matters. I wouldn't want to be the kind of person whose entire life was dedicated to making efficient use of time. A meaningful existence, for me, is one in which meaninglessness has room to flourish...There are lots of hours in the day, lots of days in the year, and time can always be found, even if it can't be regained. There is no part of me that begrudges the hours, the years, I've spent watching Federer."
[from David Foster Wallace]
"'Beauty is not the goal of competitive sports, but high-level sports are a prime venue for the expression of human beauty. The relationship is roughly that of courage to war.'"
[Regarding Rafa]
"Nadal's compulsions seem potentially limitless; where does such behavior end? Is the prematch ritual itself preceded by a pre-prematch ritual? At what point, following a victory, do preparations for the next match begin? Is any portion of Nadal's life not under the sway of some compulsion? Is the man capable of relaxing?"
"You almost feel that, if his body weren't as creaky as it is, he'd start inflicting injuries upon himself, merely to reproduce the conditions of adversity in which he flourishes."
"Nadal fans portray their hero as impeccably grounded, while depicting Federer as bigheaded, supercilious. And there may be an element of truth in this. But it's always seemed to me that there's something excessive--almost Uriah Heepish--about Nadal's humility, that, in a way, it's more dishonest than Federer's hauteur, which at least has the virtue of being commensurate with his abilities."
"Significantly, too, he views Federer's ability to ace him repeatedly with naked resentment, as if skill, rather than being something to admire, were an unjustifiable advantage, akin to cheating."
I, however, happen to be a huge fan of both tennis AND Roger Federer, so I quite enjoyed it. I especially loved Skidelsky's exploration of the Fed/Nadal rivalry, and his honest (albeit often begrudging) acknowledgment of Roger's limitations and the ways in which he's seemed to fall short of the astronomical expectations many held for him based on his early career dominance.
My reasons for withholding that fifth star are twofold: first, while I loved the chapters specifically devoted to Federer: his development, rivalries, style-of-play and fan appeal, I was less interested in hearing about Skidelsky's own coming-of-age experiences, and they occupied a fair portion of the text. Second, my age-old gripe with books written about athletes who are still playing: they are incomplete and (often) inaccurate. In this case, for instance, Skidelsky concludes his book and epilogue in 2015-16, seemingly resigned to the fact that a declining Roger Federer in his twilight years will never win another major, regain the #1 ranking, or best his old foe, Nadal. But Federer won 2 slams in 2017 and another (so far) in 2018, and he has absolutely smoked Nadal in each of their last several meetings. Perhaps Skidelsky should consider writing a sequel with retractions regarding the King's supposed fall from grace. Because if you check the rankings today, Roger's on top.
Favorite quotes:
"Roger Federer made tennis beautiful again. And he did this while playing a version of the power baseline game. It's as if he bottled the gracefulness that belonged to the sport's earlier eras and decanted it into the modern style."
"Federer's forehand is the most beautiful shot in the history of tennis. And it may also be the most effective."
"This conception of beauty is relevant to Federer, too. Virtually everything about the Swiss seems balanced, in proportion. His body has no Nadalesque asymmetries. His tennis is frequently described as 'complete.' He is equally happy at the net or the baseline. He can defend brilliantly as well as attack, and switch very quickly between the two. He uses an equivalent grip (modified Eastern) on both wings and even his backhand and forehand volleys look strangely alike, sharing the same distinctive high back lift. He is literally balanced too, in the sense that he falls over less than other players. And the concept applies, more generally, to his personality--to the way, for instance, he combines playing professional tennis with being a husband and father and how he never seems stressed or pushed for time."
"After all, his tennis is often described as perfect. When people say this, they don't simply mean that his game is flawless. The sentiment is more active: they are imputing a moral quality to his tennis, suggesting that he somehow plays the game as it should be played. What is perfect, after all, must also be right. This helps make sense of the overblown, disproportionate pain committed fans such as myself so often experience when Federer loses. Our trauma is not mainly, or only, caused by the fact that we feel sorry for him; it is more to do with our sense that some fundamental wrong, some injustice, has been perpetrated."
[on Skidelsky's own preoccupation with Federer]
"And because I've spent so much time doing all this, there are lots of other things that I haven't done, things that might be said to have more inherent value, such as reading books or earning money or putting on washes or having sex, things that--had I done them--might have caused me to be regarded, and to regard myself, as a more successful, rounded person. Yet I'm not sure that any of this really matters. I wouldn't want to be the kind of person whose entire life was dedicated to making efficient use of time. A meaningful existence, for me, is one in which meaninglessness has room to flourish...There are lots of hours in the day, lots of days in the year, and time can always be found, even if it can't be regained. There is no part of me that begrudges the hours, the years, I've spent watching Federer."
[from David Foster Wallace]
"'Beauty is not the goal of competitive sports, but high-level sports are a prime venue for the expression of human beauty. The relationship is roughly that of courage to war.'"
[Regarding Rafa]
"Nadal's compulsions seem potentially limitless; where does such behavior end? Is the prematch ritual itself preceded by a pre-prematch ritual? At what point, following a victory, do preparations for the next match begin? Is any portion of Nadal's life not under the sway of some compulsion? Is the man capable of relaxing?"
"You almost feel that, if his body weren't as creaky as it is, he'd start inflicting injuries upon himself, merely to reproduce the conditions of adversity in which he flourishes."
"Nadal fans portray their hero as impeccably grounded, while depicting Federer as bigheaded, supercilious. And there may be an element of truth in this. But it's always seemed to me that there's something excessive--almost Uriah Heepish--about Nadal's humility, that, in a way, it's more dishonest than Federer's hauteur, which at least has the virtue of being commensurate with his abilities."
"Significantly, too, he views Federer's ability to ace him repeatedly with naked resentment, as if skill, rather than being something to admire, were an unjustifiable advantage, akin to cheating."
April 13, 2017
As the author himself notes, a fair number of people of a distinctly literary bent seem to be attracted to tennis, so what does he have to add to a slew of books by writers about tennis? At first glance the author's experience seeing Federer live once at Halle, and a few times at one Wimbledon tournament and asking him two interview questions in person seems rather meagre fodder for a book length work. And there have been no shortage of people who have waxed lyrical about Roger (not least David Foster Wallace whom Skidelsky quotes liberally from).
One way is through his keen observations of the more technical aspects of the sport gleaned from being an obsessive junior player and a keen amateur once he took up the sport again post University (the reasons why he lost his love of tennis is one of the less interesting and slightly tortuous parts of the book). Perhaps the most interesting section of the book was his analysis of how tennis styles have evolved, in part due to changes in racquet technology, particularly the introduction of composite materials for racquet frames. This allowed players to not necessarily hit harder, but hit harder with much greater accuracy and led to the death of serve and volley.
I also enjoyed his discussion of why Federer's tennis is often seen as bordering on aesthetic perfection, mixing as he does the power and baseline domination that is a prerequisite of success in the modern game with throwback style like a single handed backhand and an unorthodox grip that allows for cleaning hitting on his forehand. In part, Skidelsky thinks it is partly an illusion of elegance, or more generously a superb blend of raw aggression with sublime grace.
Unfortunately, the book is titled "Federer and Me" and it is the autobiographical aspects that are less than interesting, especially when Skidelsky deviates from tennis. Pages are devoted to his rather miserable and isolated time at Eton, then Oxford; to his abandoning tennis for cricket (and occasionally squash); to details as personal as depression, and him losing his virginity and the pressures of being the son of famous Keynes biographer and a highly intelligent brother.
In sum, this is largely for tennis fans only - and feel free to skip the bits that aren't related to tennis.
One way is through his keen observations of the more technical aspects of the sport gleaned from being an obsessive junior player and a keen amateur once he took up the sport again post University (the reasons why he lost his love of tennis is one of the less interesting and slightly tortuous parts of the book). Perhaps the most interesting section of the book was his analysis of how tennis styles have evolved, in part due to changes in racquet technology, particularly the introduction of composite materials for racquet frames. This allowed players to not necessarily hit harder, but hit harder with much greater accuracy and led to the death of serve and volley.
I also enjoyed his discussion of why Federer's tennis is often seen as bordering on aesthetic perfection, mixing as he does the power and baseline domination that is a prerequisite of success in the modern game with throwback style like a single handed backhand and an unorthodox grip that allows for cleaning hitting on his forehand. In part, Skidelsky thinks it is partly an illusion of elegance, or more generously a superb blend of raw aggression with sublime grace.
Unfortunately, the book is titled "Federer and Me" and it is the autobiographical aspects that are less than interesting, especially when Skidelsky deviates from tennis. Pages are devoted to his rather miserable and isolated time at Eton, then Oxford; to his abandoning tennis for cricket (and occasionally squash); to details as personal as depression, and him losing his virginity and the pressures of being the son of famous Keynes biographer and a highly intelligent brother.
In sum, this is largely for tennis fans only - and feel free to skip the bits that aren't related to tennis.
May 30, 2023
Interesting book that taught me quite a lot about the sport and its history. Unfortunately, it felt quite niche at points, and most of the author’s personal stories failed to hold my interest. I suppose I can’t complain that I’m less invested in Federer than this dude, because I did read the title! Would recommend it only if you’re a big tennis/Roger fan. If you’re an average sports fan, go for something else.
July 17, 2016
As someone who has admired Federer's tennis over the years, I could happily identify with Skidelsky's passionate fandom for the man. I was also happy to note that Skidelsky caught onto the Federer bandwagon at least three years after I was already aboard. After all nothing makes a fan happier than having the knowledge that they were the earliest in spotting their idol's genius. But evidently Mr Skidelsky's passion burns brighter than mine (He attests to having watched almost every match Federer has played after 2006. I confess that I may not have been so devoted). Skidelsky's easy, raconteur like style made this an enjoyable read. Even the somewhat pedantic portions of the book - the exposition on the evolution of tennis racquets and the deconstruction of Federer's shots from an aesthetic perspective - are invigorating; While they have a tendency to stand out like portmanteau pieces, the author manages to bring in the gaze of a fan to leaven the scholarliness. To my eternal regret, I have not been able to see Federer up close, on court and Skidelsky's write up on watching Federer on Halle and O2 are perhaps the closest I will get to it.
I put down these thoughts closely after Federer lost to Milos Raonic in a fantastic but ultimately disappointing five setter in the Wimbledon semi final. For several Federer fans this feels like the end of the road in terms of the man winning Grand Slam again, after all there was no Nadal and Djokovic, two of Federer's fiercest competitors. One always felt that the Scot Murray would mentally disintegrate at the sight of a Federer playing at his expansive best. Nevertheless, it is a miracle that the man continues to play sublime top flight tennis at the age of 35. One can only watch in awe.
I put down these thoughts closely after Federer lost to Milos Raonic in a fantastic but ultimately disappointing five setter in the Wimbledon semi final. For several Federer fans this feels like the end of the road in terms of the man winning Grand Slam again, after all there was no Nadal and Djokovic, two of Federer's fiercest competitors. One always felt that the Scot Murray would mentally disintegrate at the sight of a Federer playing at his expansive best. Nevertheless, it is a miracle that the man continues to play sublime top flight tennis at the age of 35. One can only watch in awe.
February 23, 2018
It was a lot of fun to read this book written by someone even more obsessed with Roger Federer than I am! (And that's saying a lot!) But there is more here than play-by-play descriptions of Roger's matches. Skidelsky describes his life growing up in England, his early experiences playing tennis, his passion for cricket, his struggles with depression and ultimately his appreciation for the beauty of Federer's style of tennis. There are digressions about the history of tennis, how technology has changed the way it's played, and the nature of "fandom." Skidelsky bemoans Federer's decline as a number one player and admits that he has gotten over expecting Federer to win every match. The book was written in 2015 thus making Skidelsky's eulogy for Roger's career premature. Since then Roger Federer has had a resurgence. He has won three more majors to raise his total to 20, and, just recently, has become the oldest man (at 36) to reach the #1 ranking. It is a shame that Skidelsky published his book when he did. Maybe he'll write a sequel.
February 6, 2017
Not for the casual tennis fan but an absolute essential for the seriously Federer-obsessed. Skidelsky is all of us who have celebrated and mourned with Roger over the years; he talks candidly about spending hundreds of pounds on a single ticket to see Roger play, traveling great distances to get a glimpse of his hero, and having epic meltdowns while watching the more anxiety-producing matches. His technical knowledge of tennis, as well as his poetry in describing Roger's style of play, make this informative and entertaining. As one of the Maestro's total devotees, I found myself relating wholeheartedly to his experience of a life dedicated to the greatest tennis player of all time. A total joy to read
August 25, 2016
I'm a huge tennis fan, and Roger Federer is probably my favorite tennis player ever, so I expected that this would be a fun read, and it was. The comparisons of tennis to cricket and snooker (whatever that is) were lost on me, because I'm not from the UK, but otherwise, I enjoyed the book.
July 31, 2016
3 stars if you stick to the match write-ups.
December 20, 2016
boring and self absorbed
August 28, 2018
I genuinely don't know what to make of this book. Federer and Me defies categorisation. It's part memoir, part love letter, part history of tennis' tactical evolution, part travelogue, and part essay on the various forms 'beauty' can take.
The book traces Skidelsky's obsession with Roger Federer. In late 2006 / early 2007, Skidelsky went from being a lapsed fan of tennis generally to being a devoted fan of Roger Federer. It's an obsession in a mild sense not the 'abandon your family to go see every match' type. Instead paying £800 to see Federer play the Wimbeldon final seems to be the main case of his fandom over ruling his common sense.
The book is Skidelsky's attempt to trace this obsession that came on in his 30's and examine why he loves Federer and why the love arose at this point in his life.
Bits of the book really work for me. I quite enjoyed the tennis material - as a non-player but someone who watched a lot of tennis in the 90's but now only ever really watches a bit of Wimbeldon, I was fascinated by Sikidelsky's account of how the game evolved from the serve-and-volley error to today's baseline based sport.
Some parts of the book however left me skimming through the pages waiting for the chapter to end. In particular I could have done without the exploration of beauty which felt out of kilter with the rest of the book.
It feels like a very honest book and I suspect writing it served as a form of therapy for Skidelsky who is admirably candid about his own failings and the challenges he has faced.
Overall, the book is an interesting look at the concept of fandom - about how we form deep attachments to sportspeople who don't know we exist. The book made me reflect on my own childhood and teenage love of Roy Keane - so much so that I'm now rereading his two autobiographies. Skidelsky's descriptions of the pain of watching your chosen hero lose rings very true. However, the sinking feeling of loss and despair is probably a lot more common for those of us whose main sporting love is Ireland's international football team than those who follow the world's greatest ever tennis player!
I like Skidelsky's writing style a lot and found it a very quick and easy read. I know I will definitely give a copy to a friend who played competitive tennis and loves Federer. Outside of that niche however, I find it impossible to predict whether other readers will like it.
So overall an interesting, well-written, book that will work for some but may fell too self-involved and at times to esoteric for others.
You can see all of my sports book reviews on https://allsportsbooks.reviews or see when new review is posted on Twitter at @SprtBookReviews
The book traces Skidelsky's obsession with Roger Federer. In late 2006 / early 2007, Skidelsky went from being a lapsed fan of tennis generally to being a devoted fan of Roger Federer. It's an obsession in a mild sense not the 'abandon your family to go see every match' type. Instead paying £800 to see Federer play the Wimbeldon final seems to be the main case of his fandom over ruling his common sense.
The book is Skidelsky's attempt to trace this obsession that came on in his 30's and examine why he loves Federer and why the love arose at this point in his life.
Bits of the book really work for me. I quite enjoyed the tennis material - as a non-player but someone who watched a lot of tennis in the 90's but now only ever really watches a bit of Wimbeldon, I was fascinated by Sikidelsky's account of how the game evolved from the serve-and-volley error to today's baseline based sport.
Some parts of the book however left me skimming through the pages waiting for the chapter to end. In particular I could have done without the exploration of beauty which felt out of kilter with the rest of the book.
It feels like a very honest book and I suspect writing it served as a form of therapy for Skidelsky who is admirably candid about his own failings and the challenges he has faced.
Overall, the book is an interesting look at the concept of fandom - about how we form deep attachments to sportspeople who don't know we exist. The book made me reflect on my own childhood and teenage love of Roy Keane - so much so that I'm now rereading his two autobiographies. Skidelsky's descriptions of the pain of watching your chosen hero lose rings very true. However, the sinking feeling of loss and despair is probably a lot more common for those of us whose main sporting love is Ireland's international football team than those who follow the world's greatest ever tennis player!
I like Skidelsky's writing style a lot and found it a very quick and easy read. I know I will definitely give a copy to a friend who played competitive tennis and loves Federer. Outside of that niche however, I find it impossible to predict whether other readers will like it.
So overall an interesting, well-written, book that will work for some but may fell too self-involved and at times to esoteric for others.
You can see all of my sports book reviews on https://allsportsbooks.reviews or see when new review is posted on Twitter at @SprtBookReviews
October 14, 2017
On the age-old debate of hard work v talent and the Federer v Nadal rivalry,
"Great athletes often interact with their environments in distinctive ways. This is true of both Nadal and Federer. Nadal's special ability is one of self-transformation; when the ball isn't there, he speeds up to meet it. Federer's is the opposite: he makes the ball-or, one could say, the universe-slow down, bends it to his own stately pace. Perhaps this is finally what really divides them: one transforms himself to fit his environment; the other makes his environment fit him."
"Again, though, in a larger sense, all this could be seen as necessary. The aura of perfection, of godliness, that clung to Federer during his best years needed to be dispelled. It wasn't good for the sport, maybe not good even for Federer himself. Something had to be done, and the gods of tennis duly obliged. Having (presumably) scratched their heads for some time, they sent down the one thing capable of stopping Federer-a bunglesome messenger from a future-gone-wrong, an embodiment of every crudifying technological development of the previous four decades, a player who, with one 4,000-rpm smote of his racket, could smash all Federer's artistry, his subtlety, to pieces. Nadal, one could say, was the price tennis had to pay for Federer's genius."
"Great athletes often interact with their environments in distinctive ways. This is true of both Nadal and Federer. Nadal's special ability is one of self-transformation; when the ball isn't there, he speeds up to meet it. Federer's is the opposite: he makes the ball-or, one could say, the universe-slow down, bends it to his own stately pace. Perhaps this is finally what really divides them: one transforms himself to fit his environment; the other makes his environment fit him."
"Again, though, in a larger sense, all this could be seen as necessary. The aura of perfection, of godliness, that clung to Federer during his best years needed to be dispelled. It wasn't good for the sport, maybe not good even for Federer himself. Something had to be done, and the gods of tennis duly obliged. Having (presumably) scratched their heads for some time, they sent down the one thing capable of stopping Federer-a bunglesome messenger from a future-gone-wrong, an embodiment of every crudifying technological development of the previous four decades, a player who, with one 4,000-rpm smote of his racket, could smash all Federer's artistry, his subtlety, to pieces. Nadal, one could say, was the price tennis had to pay for Federer's genius."
August 12, 2017
If you're an obsessed Roger Federer fan - and there are many of us - you'll see yourself throughout the book. I am a Fed fan and certainly did recall many moments of agony and ecstasy while reading this book.
It's well written but only a mildly interesting read. There are what I'll call 'sidebar' chapters that go off into long technical discussions about changes in tennis, racket design, string changes, court speed, etc.
These, though informative, are really only interesting for someone who truly understands and cares about the intricacies of the game. Most people do not - even many Fed fans. They do, however, provide some measure of why Fed's style of play is possible - a bit of Fed's raison d'être.
There's a lengthy discussion about beauty in sports that raises some interesting thoughts - and it's way too esoteric for a casual read.
Overall, it's too bad the the editor didn't consolidate and prune this book a bit more to make it a spectacular read instead of just a mediocre one. Nothing really new here.
It's well written but only a mildly interesting read. There are what I'll call 'sidebar' chapters that go off into long technical discussions about changes in tennis, racket design, string changes, court speed, etc.
These, though informative, are really only interesting for someone who truly understands and cares about the intricacies of the game. Most people do not - even many Fed fans. They do, however, provide some measure of why Fed's style of play is possible - a bit of Fed's raison d'être.
There's a lengthy discussion about beauty in sports that raises some interesting thoughts - and it's way too esoteric for a casual read.
Overall, it's too bad the the editor didn't consolidate and prune this book a bit more to make it a spectacular read instead of just a mediocre one. Nothing really new here.
June 18, 2024
When I first heard about this book through Chloe Cooper Jones memoir "Easy Beauty", I was immediately fascinated about the fanaticism of Federer. What interests me most is the obsession as viewed through the lens of romance and artistry. Similar to Jones analysis of Federer/tennis in her memoir, Skidelsky explores Federer/tennis through a philosophy of beauty.
Though I'm not a huge tennis fan myself, I find this book to be-- for lack of better words--beautiful. I love how the author draws from ancient philosophies to explain why himself and others find Federer to be an object of fantasy. It just really scratches the nerdy art obsessed part of my brain.
Highly recommend reading this book while also playing the "Challengers" soundtrack on loop --(not at the same time ofc)-- but you know, like, read this book while you're drinking your morning coffee and then bump this perfect soundtrack as loud as possible while you drive to your dance class or something.
Though I'm not a huge tennis fan myself, I find this book to be-- for lack of better words--beautiful. I love how the author draws from ancient philosophies to explain why himself and others find Federer to be an object of fantasy. It just really scratches the nerdy art obsessed part of my brain.
Highly recommend reading this book while also playing the "Challengers" soundtrack on loop --(not at the same time ofc)-- but you know, like, read this book while you're drinking your morning coffee and then bump this perfect soundtrack as loud as possible while you drive to your dance class or something.
December 31, 2018
When you decide to read a title like "Federer and me", you would like to more listen to Federer and not the unknown author. Only those few chapters talking about the encounter with Federer in Halle and Wimbledon were helpful. The author hates Nadal and Djokovic, and obviously is biased against them. These players themselves know that they all have improved each other. All tennis fans know if these three players in particular were not playing at the same time, we wouldn't have the golden age of tennis (most likely this golden age will not repeat for decades). Hatred toward Nadal has obssessed the author to see his techniques and values. It was painful to listen to those parts as a tennis fan. This book was not very helpful and didn't add much to me. If it didn't have Federer in its title, I wouldn't have picked it up.
December 26, 2019
Well the full disclaimer is that that I’m a ride or die Rafan so there were parts of this book that I took with a pinch of salt. After all, at the end of that 2007 Wimbledon final I think I truly despised Roger. But that’s all long in the past when I was younger, and now I am alive to the possibility of Fedal in general, (I mean Laver Cup has seen us eating good tennis fans), so it’s not really surprising that Fed fans would feel that way against Rafa.
What I really enjoyed about it was how it captured the excitement of being a fan of someone, of the breathless live-every-point quality of watching their matches, of going to outrageous lengths to try to get a glimpse of your guy playing live. And of the positivity these little obsessions can enrich your life with.
I can’t say I agreed with every sentiment in this book, and I have my own opinions as to why this author is a Fed fan which are somewhat at odds with his own, but all in all if you are a tennis fan in general or a Federer fan in particular I would certainly say this is an ace read! (Sorry not sorry)
What I really enjoyed about it was how it captured the excitement of being a fan of someone, of the breathless live-every-point quality of watching their matches, of going to outrageous lengths to try to get a glimpse of your guy playing live. And of the positivity these little obsessions can enrich your life with.
I can’t say I agreed with every sentiment in this book, and I have my own opinions as to why this author is a Fed fan which are somewhat at odds with his own, but all in all if you are a tennis fan in general or a Federer fan in particular I would certainly say this is an ace read! (Sorry not sorry)
July 28, 2024
For a few dozen pages in the middle of this book, a tennis fan can get lost in interesting prose about Federer’s play. I could’ve read a whole book about how the game has evolved from Skidelsky.
Unfortunately, I didn’t. 90% of Federer and Me is the author trying to fill up space. If he’s not talking about how philosophers approached beauty (…yeah, I didn’t see how it fit either) or shitting on Rafael Nadal, he was recounting stories of him being a dick to people of color and women (see Dinesh, the Backpack Babes, and the Malaysian man at Wimbledon) or prioritizing seeing his favorite athlete over his then-girlfriend suffering a miscarriage and later 8-month pregnant wife caring for their family alone.
Maybe Skidelsky should “obsess” over being a moderately good person who cares about someone other than himself.
Unfortunately, I didn’t. 90% of Federer and Me is the author trying to fill up space. If he’s not talking about how philosophers approached beauty (…yeah, I didn’t see how it fit either) or shitting on Rafael Nadal, he was recounting stories of him being a dick to people of color and women (see Dinesh, the Backpack Babes, and the Malaysian man at Wimbledon) or prioritizing seeing his favorite athlete over his then-girlfriend suffering a miscarriage and later 8-month pregnant wife caring for their family alone.
Maybe Skidelsky should “obsess” over being a moderately good person who cares about someone other than himself.
September 26, 2018
I can certainly understand why this book might not be for everyone, but it appealed to me. Someone with no interest in tennis is obviously going to be completely lost, but some tennis fans might be put off by the sections where the book veers into philosophy or memoir. For me it all fits together quite well, there is some interesting discussion about beauty (in sport in particular and in general) and the parts where Skidelsky talks about his personal life show how fandom of Federer helped him through difficult times. The scope of the book was a lot broader than I would have expected (there was some general history about tennis, talking about exactly why the change to graphite rackets has changed the game).
August 25, 2018
As I die hard Fed fan, I can appreciate another's obsession with the GOAT. This book started out good and then began to get a little bogged down with the evolution of tennis and technique. There were some interesting facts that were gleaned from the history but it felt more like filler than topic. The author took a detour through his own childhood, school and tennis experiences. The parts of the book that were about Federer were interesting but, unfortunately, the book was written before his 2017-2018 resurgence.
Some interesting sections but not riveting
Some interesting sections but not riveting
March 22, 2017
Am I the only one who admires both Federer and Nadal?
This book stops in 2014, with an afterword written in 2015. Now it's early 2017 and Federer has won the first Grand Slam of the year (the Australian Open) and the tournament in the California desert (an unofficial 5th Grand Slam) at Indian Wells. What must Skidelsky think of that?
Call it insatiability, call it greed, but when perfection is what you're striving for, and what you once had, then the knife of disappointment cuts no less sharply, only at a different point.
I wouldn't want to be the kind of person whose entire life was dedicated to making efficient use of his time. A meaningful existence, for me, is one in which meaninglessness has room to flourish.
This book stops in 2014, with an afterword written in 2015. Now it's early 2017 and Federer has won the first Grand Slam of the year (the Australian Open) and the tournament in the California desert (an unofficial 5th Grand Slam) at Indian Wells. What must Skidelsky think of that?
Call it insatiability, call it greed, but when perfection is what you're striving for, and what you once had, then the knife of disappointment cuts no less sharply, only at a different point.
I wouldn't want to be the kind of person whose entire life was dedicated to making efficient use of his time. A meaningful existence, for me, is one in which meaninglessness has room to flourish.
August 1, 2018
Fun read if you're an avid tennis fan, and obviously more if you're a Federer fan. The author shares his fandom story through his good times and bad and how it affected him at different checkpoints in his life. The biographical moments were my favourite as it gave more to the story than just stats on a player. The ending landed a little flat but still enough insight and interest for me to recommend the read.
August 23, 2017
"Federer and Me" is worth the read. Skidelsky does an admirable job intertwining his obsession with tennis, Roger Federer, his life and the history and aesthetics of tennis together. He does a skillful job of describing the major events in Federer's career and putting into words what it feels like to be a Federer fan. Kudos
March 3, 2020
I was hoping for more Federer and less waffle with this book. Rather than a biography it was more about the technical side of Federer’s game. His aesthetics, and I don’t mean his handsome face.
I enjoyed the personal details from the author and his story of how he followed Federer through the highs and lows, but ultimately I wanted more of a biographical book.
I enjoyed the personal details from the author and his story of how he followed Federer through the highs and lows, but ultimately I wanted more of a biographical book.
January 16, 2022
this is a good book, definitely a story of obsession. felt that the most in the not-so objective chapters about nadal
I liked the chapter about beauty in sport. was an interesting philosophical discussion for that chapter.
and can hold its own with some of the best tennis writing out there (imo)
overall the book ended strong.
I liked the chapter about beauty in sport. was an interesting philosophical discussion for that chapter.
and can hold its own with some of the best tennis writing out there (imo)
overall the book ended strong.
November 10, 2017
Loved it, not nearly as much as I love Roger, but loved reading it. It was as if I was writing it, although I've never seen Roger play in person like he has, our obsession with Roger and the reasons why are almost identical.
February 21, 2023
I liked it, easy read. Some of the tangents he disappeared off were a bit odd. I think at times he draws some unusual conclusions but, while not a tennis fan, but a big sports fan, I found the analysis of sports watching and fandom very entertaining.
February 17, 2017
Am a big Federer fan but this book did not do anything for me
January 13, 2018
Amusing, well written in a journalistic style, makes you want to watch a match.
August 23, 2018
Can identify with the obsession. I liked the parts about Federer and details about his playing style. There was more than necessary account of author's own tennis / cricket stories
September 3, 2019
An obsessed fan explains the universal appeal of Federer by dissecting the wonders of his groundstrokes, analyzing his rivalry with Nadal, celebrating victories, and agonizing over defeats.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews