Sunday, July 06, 2008



It makes me sad. I'm sad.

I've never shared the pundits' lust for these epic kinds of matches. They can be cool, but they're only cool in as far as the participants play well. In that sense this was a pretty good game, there were lots of great moments the quality was high.

But Federer didn't play anything like as well as he can. If he's gonna play badly, I'd still rather he wins (Trevor may think this is a virtue, but I think it's a vice), but at the end of the day, the reason Federer is worth supporting is the quality of his play (potentially). He still has it, but it's been alarmingly absent in big matches for a long time now, and that's what's sad.

I think different sports have different strengths and weaknesses; soccer is great but is too random, I think golf is also a bit random (though in a different way) and I think the problem with tennis is that, on the whole it rewards the highest lowest level of play (if you see what I mean). Players like Borg, Conners, Lendle and even Sampras were consistent more than they were brilliant (as far as I know). McEnroe rose above that, and so has Federer for the past 5 years. And I think that's something worth celebrating.


Anonymous said...

was that a sampras admission i detected there - exactly - you couln't have summed up my case better - highest lowest level of play. CONVINCING play

Stuart said...