Vincent AcelingThe Fed-Express
January 29th 2007 09:24
Federer
As a Victorian and someone who resides pretty close to the heart of Melbourne, the Australian Open is ‘must watch’ television. As usual the Open did not disappoint with the quality and the caliber of play. The women’s draw was heavily contested and hard to pick until the final was played. Serena Williams was able to muscle her way through Maria Sharapova in a dominant display. The men’s draw was exactly the opposite. It was simple. Who was going to beat Federer?
Roger Federer has dominated tennis over the past few years and is clearly the stand out, the one to beat and the one who will break all the records. You could describe the situation, as he being the best and daylight between him and second best. You may think I am pointing out the obvious but to me it was quite disappointing watching a final that I believed was going to be a hard fought contest.
Fernando Gonsalez won his semi-final comprehensively, beating Tommy Haas in straight sets, which included 45 winners and 3 unforced errors. He found form at the right end of the tournament and apparently ready to take on the worlds number one. Wrong. Federer would win in straight sets and kill any hopes of an under dog winning the tournament. He was also kind enough to mention how he could not see where Fernando had improved over the last six months. His arrogance was obvious and so was his tennis.
In mentioning his arrogance and his choice of words at times, you also have to marvel at his brilliance. You couldn’t blame the guy for becoming slightly arrogant. He is a champion and he could be the best sports person the world has ever seen. For is there anyone else that dominates his/her sport quite like Federer?
| 142 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
In a way though he deserves it, no one can take him, if he really wants to win a match he just does, with the exception of Nadal on clay.
What I don't understand is michael shumaccer who has dominated Formula 1 for god knows how long, why doesn't anyone give him a hard time for continually winning?
Comment by Bhumika
Political Minds
Comment by incognito
incognito
Schumaccer was an interesting one, he always managed to look humble even when he dominated. I once saw pictures of him playing soccer with his local buddies. He just comes across as a very modest human being. I thought Federer was the same but when you receive that many accolades its hard to keep it under wraps.
Comment by incognito
incognito
It's just disappointing when the opposition seems so weak.
Comment by Homer
Comment by incognito
incognito
Comment by Punk
His English isn't completely up to scratch, and that may be a contributing factor to why he sounds so arrogant.
I LOVED what he said about Hewitt...GOLD.
Comment by Silky
Sure Federer deserves to win, physically he is the best out there... and quite possibly the best ever. I just think he needs to grow up a bit and be grateful for the skill he has been blessed with rather than just exalting himself at every opportunity.
I wish Gonzalez had won!!!!
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Well he used to be modest, he's changed a bit, I think he's just confident now, maybe his lack of a vocabulary makes it difficult for him to get messages across none aggresively.
Like, instead of 'I think such and such players forehand is good, but I should be able to overcome it', he's like 'bleh, I don't really care who it is, he's got some good points about him, I can take him down'
Comment by incognito
incognito
Comment by Anonymous
Matty
Comment by incognito
incognito
If he doesn't win he could slump like Pete did after many failed attempts.
Comment by Anonymous
And why the need to sing the praises of someone who has been patted of the back ever since he's had a silver spoon in his mouth.
The accolades you promote semi-wise, are driven by comercial interests - have a big mac for me!