Yes, on Sunday June 8th, Roger Federer will take his 4th straight shot at beating Rafael Nadal in Paris at the French Open, Roland Garros.
Never has staying home from church been so tempting.
For those of you in a little bit of doubt who these two player are, you should read these links. (Those of you who know, should DEFINITELY read these links.)
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Anything can happen, but Rafa is the 4-1 favorite so far. If you watch the match, watch for Federer to try to win points by attacking from the backhand wing. Watch for Rafa to counter by hitting the ball straight at Federer's backhand. Should Federer pull ahead at any point, immediately start holding your breath because the 4 times Federer has held a lead against Rafa on clay this year, he's managed to give it back again. The reason for this is simple. As soon as Rafa's behind, he quits trying to pick on Federer's backhand. Instead, he tries to blow the ball right over the top of Federer's backhand.
Since Rafa's a lefty, their backhands will be down the line from each other, instead of across the court from one another, and the one who puts the ball into the other's backhand side the most effectively will win. The problem is that Rafa will win just by putting it over there. Federer will only win if he puts it to Rafa's backhand, and then follows up by putting another shot all the way over to his forehand.
It's almost not fair.
But all's fair in love, tennis, and the Uncyclopedia.
HT: http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
>Never has staying home from church been so tempting.
I was thinking of staying home to sleep. I could send you text messages with updates. :-}
Heh! You know I'll be where I need to be, with my church peeps. Plus I couldn't do it justice for you.
Dude in white hit yellow ball other dude hit it back...
On those two links on Federer and Nadal, it's amazing what perspective does, isn't it?
I had to really laugh at this: "So there you go. If Federer couldn't hit his forehand, his serve or any volleys, he'd be in a lot of trouble." If. What a powerful word.
I was thinking those two articles would be a great hyperbolic example in a writing class of the power of words to paint pictures and influence perceptions. Of course, I would mean it as a warning to use words carefully, if I were a teacher. And some students might take it as a positive example.
Anyway I might have my kids read those articles with me and look for the things that are facts vs. assumptions. Words. You gotta love 'em, cause they're what we got. But sometimes they drive me nuts.
(And your thought of skipping church reminded me that I think every church I visited in Dallas--even an African church I went to--had a TV in a room off the back of the sanctuary and during "important" Cowboys' games, men would be coming and going from that room. It was pitiful. Skipping church would have been way more courteous than that. I've never lived any other place like Dallas when it comes to sports.)
You know, I don't mind missing a match like this. Not too much, anyway. If it's a good match, I'll buy it from somewhere and get to analyze it in depth. And if it's a bad match (translation: Federer loses again), I will be glad not to have lost the 3-5 hours suffering with him.
There's a lot of pleasure in vicariously participating in our heroes' performances (witness the hundreds of billions of dollars spectator sports rake in), but I have my own carious pleasures.
I played the Lancaster Open 3 weeks ago, the Gahanna Open last week, and the Bexley Open this week. I face all the EXACT same demons Federer faced when he was 7 years old and playing his first tournaments, and it is gloriously fun. It's a lot more expensive that watching TV, in every way, and it's a thrilling price to pay.
(But Ithe idea of having a TV in a back room somewhere did resonate with me for a second. :-)
And Federer drops the first game with 3 forehand errors. It may be a long day.
Off to be with brothers and sisters. :-)
Am so sorry dude. Didn't see the match, but read about it. Will be interested in your analysis of it all.
We stayed home as my ankles were under the weather and watched the whole ugly (for those of use Roger fans)thing.
I predict Nadal will:
-win Wimbledon and the US Open
-keep the #1 seed the rest of the year
Of course I am still pulling for old man Federer :)
I did not see any of the match after the second game. The first two games seem to have said it all, though.
In my mind, this seals the deal. Federer is the best tennis player ever, but he's not the GOAT (greatest of all time.) It may be a difference without distinction to some, but Federer was not the greatest during his own time. Nadal didn't just win 4 French Opens, He imposed his will on the #1 player year after year after year. And this year he flat-out spanked him.
Nadal is barely 22. At 22 Federer only had a single grand slam win to his credit. He has added new dimensions to his once one-dimensional game. He has proven that he can keep his body going. He has become one of the best rounded tennis player's ever. I would not be surprised, KB, if you were exactly right.
But still think Federer has some piss and vinegar in him. If he plays as poorly as he did last year, he'll lose. If decides he needs to bring some grit to the grass, We'll see him break the record.
It's on his racket.
Kinda late to comment on this, but whatever:)
I like Federer more than Nadal. I don't really care what the ratings say, he'll always be the best in my book. He just exudes cool. I mean, his opponent will be running and sweating and tired and he'll just be playing at the same intensity for the entire match. And for those who don't like "perfect" players who are like "machines," well, we all saw Federer cry. He's human too!
Plus he's got great style.
Post a Comment