How would the second best take it

I know it's slightly off topic but I am asking it anyway.
We usually encounter certain people in certain fields that are just so good that its always an uphill battle for others who work in the same field during their era. A prime example is Roger Federer in tennis. I was recently watching a video of his and it seemed like the whole stadium was by his side rooting against his opponent. How do the other players cope with this situation. Audience are fickle and they don't care if its mean to the other player. It's not just in that field. It could be in any field. Most people know that during their era he will be the most memorable player. But they still have to keep playing. How does players cope with it knowing that the best they could reach is the 2nd most memorable player of that era ?

Who says they know the best they can reach is 2nd? I haven't heard of this, and I think it's simply not true. The world loves underdogs, and no one stays on top forever. I can't comment about Federer, because I don't know anything about him. But you can't look at one isolated instance when everyone was cheering for him and act like that's the norm across the board. I've gone to over 100 videogame tournaments, and I can tell you from personal experience that people often cheer against the best player, and cheer for underdogs, and the whole crowd goes nuts when the underdog wins. I'll give you an example.

Listen to the commentators talking about the players. Twenty seconds in they start giving you context behind the match. Once they've explained everything you can skip to the end if you just want to see the results.

I think I get your point: that in certain endeavors, some are so outstanding that others can be intimidated.

In acting, it must have been daunting for some to work with Bette Davis. More recent examples might be Pacino, P.S. Hoffman, Daniel Day-Lewis, Maggie Smith, Michael Keaton, and the like. I think the great ones make the effort to make the others feel comfortable working with them.

~Doc

They're probably competitive and it probably lights a fire under them. But that's the nature of competing in public, for sure. I get what you're asking, but if you're in these fields, you've been competing in front of people--and having them dissect and critique you for it--for most of your life already. It's inherent to the process. Athletes, in particular, know very early on what they're signing up for and the best are the ones that use it to motive themselves, instead of discourage themselves.

I've had to contend with this a tiny bit since getting into esports (both playing and casting it), and yeah, it's a thing. Trickier in those scenarios because it's a niche community and most of us know each other or are even friends, but we put that aside so it can work like a professional league, where thoughtful criticism is expected when someone makes a mistake, competitively.

That's really the big difference, I guess: what you're saying makes a lot of sense if we think of commentators and athletes as friends, but obviously they have a different relationship, where the rankings and the criticism is expected.

No...that’s not what I meant. I meant the very existence of the number 1 could mean that number 2 will always be remembered in a lesser view. Mark wahlberg will not be remembered as much as brad Pitt. It’s not even them working together. I mean it in terms of legacy

If that's what you were driving at, then it probably depends upon the endeavor. For example in a tournament, like say golf, no one remembers who came in second-- only the winner.

But in acting, e.g. from the '40s, Mickey Rooney, Spencer Tracy, Clark Gable may have been the top box office draws, but there were dozens of others who the public looked upon as equals.

Putting it another way, are you saying (which I think is true) that nobody wants a silver medal let alone bronze. Only gold will do.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.