Article

Stick_man

I was hoping to get some feedback on this article, any opinions positive or negative are welcome. (You might not agree with it, but if you could mention if you found it a decent read or not would be helpful)

Tears of Federer sap the soul.

I woke up in an unusually perky manner last Monday morning, the previous night’s “humdinger” between Arizona and Pittsburgh was still fresh in the memory and not even the arctic gusts outside could chill the warm glow inside, I was positively purring by the time I set off to work wondering what Monday was going to be like without the blues and then it hit me. The shrill voice of the sports broadcaster came over the airwaves with her report “ Rafael Nadal defeated Rodger Federer in the final of the Australian open to take his grand slam tally to six”. Those wonderful, blissful moments where you have forgotten some nightmare was evaporated as I recalled with horror the tears of the greatest drenching the harsh courts of Melbourne.

Sympathy should not be in short supply for Rodger Federer. The majesty he displays on the court is matched only by his grace off of it. To see such a regal figure reduced to such a state was a chastening experience. When he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon he kept his emotions in check but to have immortality cruelly snatched from his grasp was too much even for this titan. Some will criticise him for being reduced to tears. Gladiators don’t show weakness. Yet it was this moment that Federer proved his greatness. Immortality is his, no-one has and possibly no-one ever will deliver such mesmerising moments with such regularity as he has on the courts of the world this past decade yet the need for him to rubber stamp the record books and prove it all to us is still driving him. Nadal is his nemesis, one who appears to have broken him. Their rivalry can best describe some of the worlds woes, a world where pragmatism defeats poetry.

I am perhaps being too harsh on Nadal. He has many admirable qualities. Qualities every successful sportsman needs. He can no longer be pigeon-holed as the bull in the china shop nor is he an arrogant winner or sore loser. He is a phenomenally gifted tennis player and what’s more he is a warrior. He displayed superhuman powers of recovery to win last Sunday despite going all the way with Fernando Verdasco only forty-eight hours earlier. But stamina makes for a lousy stanza and for all his innate gifts and obvious mental toughness Nadal just fails to inspire. With each swish of his racket Federer reaches for the stars, Nadal reaches for the baseline. The pragmatic one wins but people remember only the stars never the stats.

cfitz

Very well written, definitely wouldn't look out of place in a newspaper or magazine. Even though I prefer Federer to Nadal, I still didn't agree with a lot of the article. A little too nice to Federer, a lot too harsh on Nadal. But the stuff about style v. stamina etc got me thinking, and I was picturing them on court in my head so that has to be a good sign.

I quite enjoyed it (I'm no literary genius though).

Mikel

I dunno, the central thesis of it seems to be that Federer is deserving of sympathy because he's a great player and hasn't yet achieved his record because the 'pragmatic' Nadal gets in the way.

In no particular order:
He's won 13 slam events, I'd be more inclined to feel sympathy for those guys who came close to one but just failed, or strove for one particular event but just fell short.
When Goran played Rafter at Wimbledon and we all knew it was the last year for both of them, I was going to feel sympathy for whoever lost because both were big figures there for many years.

I don't like the assumption that the record is Roger's to break, some kind of entitlement. I'm sure he'll get the one more he needs, but every one of the legends in tennis could point to an adversary who stopped them winning more.

The majesty he displays on the court is matched only by his grace off of it

Sure he's majestic on the court and at times appears to be playing a different game, but maybe that's part of his problem. An unwillingness to do the more prosaic things and grind it out a bit.
Off the court he seems humble, but so does Nadal, and Roddick, and lots of others. Agassi always struck me and humble and not at all arrogant.

Yet it was this moment that Federer proved his greatness.

How did crying prove his greatness? He's entitled to cry if he wants but it proves he hurts, not that he's great.

world where pragmatism defeats poetry

Sport isn't about poetry, and Nadal isn't just about pragmatism.
He's a wonderfully gifted and hard working player, to cast him as some kind of automaton grinding out long rallies is unfair.
Some of the passing shots he pulls off are incredible, he's also shown a willingness to step outside of his comfort zone and work hard on his weaknesses, that is to be admired as much as Roger's 'gracefulness'
Nadal doesn't just have some 'admirable qualities', his groundstrokes match probably anyones on the tour.

Nadal just fails to inspire.

I disagree.

The pragmatic one wins but people remember only the stars never the stats.

What stats?

Rogers problem is not that Nadal is pragmatic, it's that he's not strong enough mentally or physically to beat Nadal at the moment.
Both of these are fixable.
He should approach these weaknesses and work on them the same way Nadal works on his.

I think he started paying too much attention to his 'legacy' and acting as if the tour there to allow him to break records.
I mean, the business of walking out at Wimbledon wearing long white trousers and a blazer, WTF??
I'd wager there was plenty of resentment amongst the other players.

Is the frustration he feels that he can't beat Nadal any worse than the frustration other players feels against him?

You can feel sympathy for Roger if you want, but what about sympathy for the likes of Roddick who can't beat him.
What about Murray, where does he fit into this narrative?
His record against Roger is pretty good (over 3 sets), is he poetic or pragmatic?

Stick_man

Mikel wrote: »

I dunno, the central thesis of it seems to be that Federer is deserving of sympathy because he's a great player and hasn't yet achieved his record because the 'pragmatic' Nadal gets in the way.

In no particular order:
He's won 13 slam events, I'd be more inclined to feel sympathy for those guys who came close to one but just failed, or strove for one particular event but just fell short.
When Goran played Rafter at Wimbledon and we all knew it was the last year for both of them, I was going to feel sympathy for whoever lost because both were big figures there for many years.

I don't like the assumption that the record is Roger's to break, some kind of entitlement. I'm sure he'll get the one more he needs, but every one of the legends in tennis could point to an adversary who stopped them winning more.


Sure he's majestic on the court and at times appears to be playing a different game, but maybe that's part of his problem. An unwillingness to do the more prosaic things and grind it out a bit.
Off the court he seems humble, but so does Nadal, and Roddick, and lots of others. Agassi always struck me and humble and not at all arrogant.


How did crying prove his greatness? He's entitled to cry if he wants but it proves he hurts, not that he's great.


Sport isn't about poetry, and Nadal isn't just about pragmatism.
He's a wonderfully gifted and hard working player, to cast him as some kind of automaton grinding out long rallies is unfair.
Some of the passing shots he pulls off are incredible, he's also shown a willingness to step outside of his comfort zone and work hard on his weaknesses, that is to be admired as much as Roger's 'gracefulness'
Nadal doesn't just have some 'admirable qualities', his groundstrokes match probably anyones on the tour.


I disagree.

What stats?

Rogers problem is not that Nadal is pragmatic, it's that he's not strong enough mentally or physically to beat Nadal at the moment.
Both of these are fixable.
He should approach these weaknesses and work on them the same way Nadal works on his.

I think he started paying too much attention to his 'legacy' and acting as if the tour there to allow him to break records.
I mean, the business of walking out at Wimbledon wearing long white trousers and a blazer, WTF??
I'd wager there was plenty of resentment amongst the other players.

Is the frustration he feels that he can't beat Nadal any worse than the frustration other players feels against him?

You can feel sympathy for Roger if you want, but what about sympathy for the likes of Roddick who can't beat him.
What about Murray, where does he fit into this narrative?
His record against Roger is pretty good (over 3 sets), is he poetic or pragmatic?

You make a very strong case and present it very well and I fully respect your argument, I think I gave Nadal his dues and I did admit maybe I was being too harsh on him. I have immense respect for the guy as a player, Why wouldnt I? He just does'nt inspire me the way Federer does. On another note could you give me your opinion on how the article was written? Im finding it hard to get any feedback. As I said people might disagre with it.

Stick_man

cfitz wrote: »

Very well written, definitely wouldn't look out of place in a newspaper or magazine. Even though I prefer Federer to Nadal, I still didn't agree with a lot of the article. A little too nice to Federer, a lot too harsh on Nadal. But the stuff about style v. stamina etc got me thinking, and I was picturing them on court in my head so that has to be a good sign.

I quite enjoyed it (I'm no literary genius though).

Thank you for taking the time to read and make a comment on it. Much appreaciated.