Wrapping up Wimbledon...
Well, it's time to wrap up the tennis tournament across the sea; you know, the one that involves grass. I normally wouldn't have so many Wimbledon-related posts, but since half of my readers seem to be avid tennis fans (2 out of the four-ish) I figured it might be the topic that elicited the most response. Besides, Venus Williams won Wimbledon, which gave me some cause for celebration.
It's been difficult to cheer for tennis in the past few years because of what American reporters bemoan as a "lack of superstars." I think that this term is a misnomer- we've been quite used to tennis players who were immature and gifted, and we're now stuck with a new breed of international players who are as good, but not interested in creating feuds with one another.
At the forefront of these superstars is Swiss sensation Roger Federer, a man who plays a different brand of tennis than perhaps anyone ever. His ability to control a match with groundstrokes is quite unparalleled, and his accuracy is killer and second-to-none. Federer mopped up Lleyton Hewitt (my favorite player, partially because he doesn't have any big weapons and partially because he yells "Come on!" for no particular reason in matches) in straight sets in the semifinals. Then Federer dismantled Andy Roddick, who, like Hewitt, claimed that he played very well, but didn't have a chance. This admission by Roddick was quite shocking, and it reminds us of another sport where players admitted they had no chance- golf, with Tiger Woods.
This begs the logical question: is Federer another version of Woods? I think it's a closer comparison then one might think; Federer has made the semi-finals of every Grand Slam this year, and has at one time won 3 of 4 majors in one year. In addition, Federer has complete dominance over one venue (much like Woods in Augusta) and doesn't seem to be slowing down at all.
What makes this assertion credible is the fact that many players on the ATP tour would probably agree with it. Roddick and Hewitt both played well at Wimbledon and didn't win a set; Spanish star Rafael Nadal needed four sets to beat Federer on Federer's worst surface - clay - in a match that many thought should have been the French final. It is conceivable that Federer wins at least 10 Grand Slam titles, which would make him historically great. In addition, Federer has an all-court game and wins practically every tournament he enters, making him sort of unlike a lot of his predecessors.
Yet, many of us don't care because Federer is quiet and non-American. His demeanor is neither candid nor reticent; his abilities speak for themselves. If you go to his website, you find a very professional, formal account of his abilities, and an advertisement for some cosmetics that he sells. (Those too aren't flashy.) Roger Federer brings up an important question: can greatness really speak for itself? Only time can tell.
Mike
It's been difficult to cheer for tennis in the past few years because of what American reporters bemoan as a "lack of superstars." I think that this term is a misnomer- we've been quite used to tennis players who were immature and gifted, and we're now stuck with a new breed of international players who are as good, but not interested in creating feuds with one another.
At the forefront of these superstars is Swiss sensation Roger Federer, a man who plays a different brand of tennis than perhaps anyone ever. His ability to control a match with groundstrokes is quite unparalleled, and his accuracy is killer and second-to-none. Federer mopped up Lleyton Hewitt (my favorite player, partially because he doesn't have any big weapons and partially because he yells "Come on!" for no particular reason in matches) in straight sets in the semifinals. Then Federer dismantled Andy Roddick, who, like Hewitt, claimed that he played very well, but didn't have a chance. This admission by Roddick was quite shocking, and it reminds us of another sport where players admitted they had no chance- golf, with Tiger Woods.
This begs the logical question: is Federer another version of Woods? I think it's a closer comparison then one might think; Federer has made the semi-finals of every Grand Slam this year, and has at one time won 3 of 4 majors in one year. In addition, Federer has complete dominance over one venue (much like Woods in Augusta) and doesn't seem to be slowing down at all.
What makes this assertion credible is the fact that many players on the ATP tour would probably agree with it. Roddick and Hewitt both played well at Wimbledon and didn't win a set; Spanish star Rafael Nadal needed four sets to beat Federer on Federer's worst surface - clay - in a match that many thought should have been the French final. It is conceivable that Federer wins at least 10 Grand Slam titles, which would make him historically great. In addition, Federer has an all-court game and wins practically every tournament he enters, making him sort of unlike a lot of his predecessors.
Yet, many of us don't care because Federer is quiet and non-American. His demeanor is neither candid nor reticent; his abilities speak for themselves. If you go to his website, you find a very professional, formal account of his abilities, and an advertisement for some cosmetics that he sells. (Those too aren't flashy.) Roger Federer brings up an important question: can greatness really speak for itself? Only time can tell.
Mike
posted by mike at 8:17 PM
2 Comments:
Tennis is the gay.
John has sex with Mexican boys.
Post a Comment
<< Home