No, I did not say that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
But the play-on-words probably works for some people’s psyche.
Federer did have a splendid outing, of course, as he mounted his charge today for world #1 in Rotterdam against the #116 ranked Belgian Ruben Bemelmans. Federer whet his appetite 6-1 6-2. He looks both motivated and as uninhibited as Nadal on clay.
One can see the near perfect environment in Rotterdam for Federer’s precision. His serve looks lethal, the combination of BH slice and attack free and deadly, his varied FH spin and arch circus-like, the much improved ROS relentless — this all looks both like a delicious offering at a world class bakery and a frightening tennis reality.
He doesn’t seem to have a care in the world and he shows also the determination and professionalism to keep it that way. Today’s competition was not top-of-the-Tour quality; none the less, Federer remains bent on treating everyone with the same amount of dis/respect.
You following this logical slight-of-hand that to the combination of tennis fan and tennis opponent alike shines like a brilliant double-edged sword?
Ah, the bridge built to the weak-era excrement.
Federer is playing murderously versus whoever he’s playing, despite whatever quality is opposite his Swissness.
I’m with a lot of you out there: I want to see Federer play Djokovic and Murray and Wawrinka, et al. But they’re not around. Where are they? That’s not a rhetorical question.
What do Kyrgios (IW), Berdych (WB), and Chung (AO) have in common (I might be missing one)?
They beat Novak in the match preceding a date with Federer. We were that close to Federer v Novak in the last year.
Stan might have been an interesting obstacle to Federer’s climb to #1 here in Rotterdam, anticipating their potential QF match; but Stan lost in the first round to a #259 ranked kid from Haarlem (Tallon Griekspoor).
John McEnroe beat Borg in the 1981 USO final, second straight final defeat of the Swede in NYC, which turned-out to be Borg’s final grand slam match.
McEnroe only won three more grand slams. His last major was the 1984 USO; he was 25 years-old. People say the early retirement of Borg cost McEnroe a lot. If that makes sense. He lost his greatest rival though we know the Lendls and Connors of the world weren’t exactly chopped liver.
But McEnroe, some argue, may have lost some of that motivation. Instead of the loss of a rival fueling the argument that the era became weak, that a player’s legacy is marred because of weak competition, the argument for McEnroe is he lost his desire to compete in his early-to-mid 20s.
Federer is getting the weak-era bullshit sent his way.
We know one can’t really make the other argument, that he’s lost the desire.
If McEnroe had dominated more, having lost that critical rivalry, he’d probably hear some of that weak-era bullshit.
You see, the peanut gallery is full of shit.
Federer is also being called a serve-bot at this point, the guy with the most fluent and multifarious tennis.
Lots of bullshit.
The tour needs to step-up, get healthy and put a stop to this Fed Express that looks every bit ready for whomever you put in-front of him.
The form, the draw, the commentary, Dear God.