What is the psychology behind rooting for someone's continued success vs. someone's failure?

Question

Let's face it... some people want Federer to lose in the finals just to see him fail. I'm not referring to Nadal fans who want Nadal to win (I understand that some people really support other players). I'm talking about people who want Federer to lose no matter who he is playing against, just to see him fail.

On the other hand, some people cheer him on because they love seeing greatness, perfection, dominance. These people enjoy seeing successful players who excel at what they do. (I think some fans of other players are able to appreciate Fed's excellence as well.)

What is the psychology behind this? Why would a person be one or the other?

Answer 1

A lot of this is the love to root for the underdog.  Everyone loves a "rags to riches" feel good story.  In american football a few years ago, almost everyone wanted to see the Patriots upset the Rams in the superbowl.  3 SuperBowl titles later, almost everyone rooted for the NY Giants to upset the Pats.

Why?  Because the Pats were no longer the underdogs.  They were the team that continually won the championship.  A string of success breeds high expectations, confidence, and to some extent arrogance.

As a fan, watching the same person/team win championships time after time becomes old.  In NASCAR, Jeff Gordon went from the golden child face of the sport to one of the most disdained individuals on the circuit.  This was in part because he displayed poor sportmanship and professionalism when he didn't get his way.  Throw in the fact that he was virtually unbeatable, and there was too much predictability in the sport.

Answer 2

I think that's a good question. I couldn't file my own opinion into such succinct categories with any top seeded player.

But I think for continued success people can either genuinely admire the players talent or they're romanticized by the larger-than-life dominance that such a skilled player exhibits. It's the difference in saying I love Federer's game because he is a prodigy of tennis mechanics versus I love Federer's game because he always wins. So it becomes an either in-depth or shallow appreciation. I think Tiger Woods has the same situation.

People who root against him are probably, I think, more interested in tennis as a democratic competition. Losing is a way of normalizing the competition of a dominating player. Americans, in particular, have a strong affinity for the underdog and indiscriminately unseating the powerful [an us vs. them complex]; it's a theme that is widespread in our culture [literature, history, song, cinema].

Those are my thoughts at least.

Answer 3

'Barracking' for an indiividual sportsperson is a relatively new phenomenon, surely.   Barracking, originally, was a parochial loyalty to one's home team, and I can understand why it happened.    One's friends from the village where one lived are playing a team game against those from another area, and the simple fact of patriotic fervour explains it.  

  To an extent, it explains barracking for an individual, or should.   But Hewitt's main critics are Australian.  Hmmm!

I feel that the emotion involved in passionately favouring one tennis player over his/her opponent is responsible for many a memorable day at the tennis, but that it robs the viewer of 50% of the appreciation for a game played between TWO fine tennis players.  

I think, in short, that barracking is rather childish, although quite understandable...  We seem to be extending this 'barracking' emotionalism into politics as well, and THAT is seriously flawed!

Answer 4

You're right. I want Federer to lose to make him fail and for Nadal to have his glory and the respect that he deserves.