I frequent two tennis forums to catch up on news and opinions and what really bugs me is the huge arrogance of fans of different players. In hockey, we call teams 'insulting' nicknames (Lames, Coilers, Cannots, Queens) but it isn't done with a ton of malice.
But on these tennis forums, the huge amounts of butthurt whenever their favourite player loses, and the stuff that is said the other way towards the fans of certain players when said player loses.
These forums aren't moderated as tightly as CDC, which is a detriment, because you will have multiple (and I'm talking 5+) virtually identical threads about the same loss saying how that player's career is officially on the decline, or 'will there ever win another title?', or '[player name] has plateaued'. The worst is when a player whose playing style they don't like loses, then there will be multiple posts of '[name of winning player] has saved tennis'. What? You don't like the playing style of a player. Fine. The other guy didn't 'save tennis' by preventing that player from going further in the tournament.
Now, specific to Raonic, he is especially hated by the majority of posters on both forums because of his serve dependent playing style. He'll frequently be called 'serve-bot' and other derogatory names. He gets no recognition for his achievements (such as recently achieving 9th in the world) and after every loss it's '[winner] saves tennis', 'serve-bot's serve didn't work today, did it?', etc.
On one of the forums, a poster predicted that if Raonic's play didn't drop too far from the level he played at to defeat Ceuvas, then he should beat Berlocq. After Berlocq beat Raonic in two sets this morning, that poster was being called a 'Canadatard' by multiple posters and any effort to defend him/herself was dismissed as trolling by the posters who hate Raonic.
Another thing I hate is the swing in favour and opinion of those tennis fans. Last year, when Jerzy Janowicz made the Wimby SF, Janowicz was made out to be a god, the best player from his generation (which includes Raonic, and Dimitrov). Now almost a year later Janowicz has had no major success and once he fails to defend his Wimby SF points will fall out of the top 30. Now those fans think Janowicz is nothing and that he only had a lucky draw, something they obviously were not attributing his success to just after Wimbledon.
When Wawrinka was outside the top 10 and on the wrong side of 25, those fans wrote him off as having plateaued. Since he's won the Australian open and Monte-Carlo and climbed to 3rd in the world (despite being 29), now he's the 'saviour of tennis'.
Dimitrov, a few months younger than Raonic, reached his first Gram Slam QF and won his first ATP 500 title this year, neither of which Raonic has done yet (Raonic has reached GS 4th rounds, and is 0-4 in ATP 500 finals). In place of Janowicz, Dimitrov is now being made out as the best player of that generation, despite the fact Raonic is ranked higher, has had more consistent results, and has won more titles overall (all of them ATP 250 though). Even I can see that Dimitrov is a very good player but labelling him as the best of a generation after 4 great months, even though Raonic has had a very good, consistent 3 years on tour is hardly fair.
I just needed to get all that off my chest. I've been holding that all in because nobody else in my family or friends really follows tennis and I don't get a chance to discuss it much. I can only read those forums which only frustrates me more in the long run.