Philippoussis Loses, Should Still Receive Aussie Open Wildcard

SI is irrelevant. I am assuming that a lot of the writers that always cite SI and the sportsman of the year award are in love with pro football, baseball, or golf.

Tennis is tennis. It will never be pro football. I don’t understand why tennis fans can’t accept this. Who cares if it’s not a bigger draw? That aside, Federer has brought way more attention to the sport in the U.S. than Sampras ever did. The only time Sampras brought attention was when he played Agassi. Also, if Agassi had totally changed his appearance earlier in his career no one would have cared about him either.

The Australian Open is a slam because of tradition. Slams may have changed venues, but they should not change nations.

Let’s just assume the U.S. goes down the crapshoot economically, which is very possible for reasons that do not need to be discussed here. Let’s also assume we continue to put all our tennis hopes in 5’9″ mediocre players like Donald Young or lazy, unmotivated players like Sam Querry. Should we move the U.S. Open to another country as a result of all this? Why not also move Wimbledon? There are hardly any good British players and Wimbledon has been terribly lazy about updating their facilities until recently. Also, how about the French Open? French players were awful for decades, so lets move that one to Asia or Dubia. Hell, it’s all about money, right? We have to make tennis bigger so companies…I mean players…will make more money…

December 16th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

“Count up the number of Sportsman of the Year awards Federer has been awarded from Sports Illustrated magazine — you could count them even if you had no fingers.”

You make it sound like SI has something personal against Federer. They don’t have anything against Federer but they do have something against tennis. Sampras, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, these American men never won Sportsman of the Year either.

“SI is irrelevant. I am assuming that a lot of the writers that always cite SI and the sportsman of the year award are in love with pro football, baseball, or golf.”

SI isn’t irrelevant to American sports fans at all- just to an arrogant few who know nothing about American sports culture. If SI were truly irrelevent then the Fed fans wouldn’t spend so much time ranting and whailing against SI to prove how “irrelevant” they are.

“Federer has brought way more attention to the sport in the U.S. than Sampras ever did.”

Do you have any concrete proof of this? Because according to the TV ratings Sampras’ ratings were much higher than any of the Federer matches. I’m sure Federer is a big star in Switzerland but not in the U.S.

“The Australian Open is a slam because of tradition.”

The Australian Open only recently gained respect due to Agassi’s involvement. The Australians should thank the American for putting the AO on the tennis map. Before, they were a joke slam that many top players used to skip.

December 16th, 2007 at 9:34 pm

SI is absolutely irrelevant – at least if you believe that ideally sports should draw on talent from everywhere in the world. Baseball, football, and Nascar might be great entertainment, but no one plays them except Americans. These sports draw on very narrow pools of talent. How can you call something the “World Series” when it’s 99% American guys plus a few Japanese and Dominican players?

BUT if pure entertainment is all that matters then I guess SI is doing just fine. In the context of tennis, however, let’s just stop talking about a publication whose major concern is to sell issues rather than honor great athletes.

What would mean most to me, however, would be if every major sports website featured a poll, and then a sportsman of the year award was given to the person with most combined votes.

December 16th, 2007 at 10:31 pm

By the way, the Australian Open was firmly on the map when Chris Evert beat Martina Navratilova there.

Agassi was as important for the Australian Open as he was for any grand slam, but he definitely did not put the Australian Open “on the map.” Even an ignorant American tennis fan would give Courier credit for that.

The major attention that Sampras got in American media was for how boring he was. So while I don’t have concrete statistics, I can definitely say that given that he is the greatest American tennis player that ever lived he did very little for the sport’s popularity in the U.S. On the other hand, I do think that Federer’s ruthless domination and the way American media plays that up has helped a lot. Also, the way Federer takes the time with sponsorship obligations and hanging out with Tiger Woods (even if IMG orchestrates it) does a ton for the sport. Those segments got replayed on SportsCenter more than any tennis match I can remember.

December 16th, 2007 at 10:49 pm

I would like to see our American media coverage write or televise our American tennis players in more positive terms than in the usual manner of disecting them if they don’t play a point in what they feel is the correct way or make an error in a match. The media is not satisfied that a player wins, they disect their game and when they are finished the win looks or sounds worse than a loss. It is appalling. It seems to me from the media’s point of view that there is only one perfect tennis player- Federer. All others are just there to make up the number for the draw.

Federer has aligned himself with two of our best American players, Pete Sampras and Tiger Woods. Where else in the world would there be commercials shown with a player from another country than in this country. Our players should be in the commercials not him.

December 17th, 2007 at 4:00 am

I agree, Philippoussis playing would be a good story even if he loses miserably in the first round. I would like to watch him play on TV also myself. But I think they should wait until the very last minute, after Adelaide to award him the wildcard even if it was never in doubt.

December 17th, 2007 at 5:29 am

If anything the American media is constantly trying to belittle Federer and all his accomplishments-You want commercials with your American players that’s fine but then again the reason as to why Federer is Federer is because he outshines them in every single department of the game so logically if i wanted to sell a product or an idea or whatever then i would definitely rush to use someone as great as him as my frontman rather than other mediorcre players. THE GUY IS A LIVING LEGEND AND HE SELLS! As for sports illustrated-this magaizne is irrelevant and crappy for that matter. I mean what does this guy (Roger) have to do in order to finally “grace” the stupid cover? Seriously what !?!? People, their children, their grandchildren will die before that magazine acknowledges Federer’s greatness…All would be different IF and i emphasize on IF-IF he had the AMERICAN PASSPORT…
OH AND SAMPRAS WAS ON SI’s COVER ONCE but im not sure what year which proves my point even more this is an irrelevant, crappy and BIAS magazine!

December 17th, 2007 at 5:38 am

I am not talking about SI, I have no interest in that magazine. My remarks concern the fact that I would like to see or hear some positive remarks about our (American) tennis players. They are belittled far too much and it is uncalled for. Would the Swiss media support our American players? Certainly not. Federer would be their choice for all advertisement.

I should address Philippoussis’ problem instead of SI. I feel that in view of his recent health problems which kept him from competing for about a year, he should be given a wild card. This nonsense about giving it to a younger player is wrong. What it all boils down to is the fact that when you are 30 and over you are too old for the game and should step aside to let a younger player in. Jimmy Connors played until he was 40. By allowing Philippoussis to play would help him emotionally. You don’t kick someone when they are down. The media does enough of that. Philippoussis represented Australia for many years and he should be given a wild card.

December 17th, 2007 at 7:02 am

At least the Australian authorities let Philippoussis enter the contest for a wildcard. Robby Ginepri’s deemed too old to even enter the playoff for the USTA’s wildcard.

December 17th, 2007 at 9:04 am

“With their reputation in need of repair, the 2008 Aussie Open needs to put on a good show, a great show, create as much buzz as possible, and are you going to get more PR mileage out of Philippoussis or, say, a Samuel Groth? Would Aussie Open fans and the world tennis audience prefer to see a former Top 10-ranked Wimbledon and US Open runner-up who has starred in his own reality dating show, has professed to relations with Anna Kournikova among (many) others, was named in People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive 1998 issue as one of the “sexiest imports,” and sports sleeveless shirts that make women swoon over his Alexander the Great tattoo?”

What will it matter? He’s going to lose in the first round either way, so it’s not like people will see much of him anyway.

December 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

“I should address Philippoussis’ problem instead of SI. I feel that in view of his recent health problems which kept him from competing for about a year, he should be given a wild card. This nonsense about giving it to a younger player is wrong. What it all boils down to is the fact that when you are 30 and over you are too old for the game and should step aside to let a younger player in. Jimmy Connors played until he was 40. By allowing Philippoussis to play would help him emotionally. You don’t kick someone when they are down. The media does enough of that. Philippoussis represented Australia for many years and he should be given a wild card.”

He has had a history of being given wildcards, not just to Aussie events but everywhere — and he’s never proven himself worthy of them. Most of the time, he lost in the first round.

He can’t continue to be given wildcards forever. The argument that he’s done a lot for Australia and deserves it would entitle him to get free wildcards on a platter for the rest of his career, and that is unfair to the kids who have to work hard for them. They are the future, he is the past. It’s a matter of ethics.

December 17th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I think that any sports magazine that does not acknowledge a guy with a cover, after this person has so thoroughly dominated his sport says something about the magazine. SI has made itself irrelevant by ignoring Federer.

It’s not like Federer is playing handball or cricket. The US has it’s own major and no country has more tennis events within it than the USA.

And considering that golf has similar lineage to tennis (…golf came from England just as tennis did), it makes no sense that Tiger is an SI fave and Fed isn’t. Quite frankly, it’s easy to see how Federer fans would be wrankled by what is nothing less than a snub.

As for P’sis, he’s trying to get into the Australian “Open”. You are not entitled to one thing more than the rules allow. If he’s not Australia’s best entry he shouldn’t be there. This isn’t the PGA tour where you earn exemptions. You have to generally be succussful to earn your way into a tennis major. A major is supposed to have the best players, not necessarily the players we like best.

December 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Wildcard for Flip? Why not just recommend Rod Laver, Newk, Pat Cash and Pat Rafter also get wildcards. Why stop with just Flip. Those guys are far more iconic and deserving. Just turn the sport into freaking circus and put a tent over it.

Naydal:”Federer has brought way more attention to the sport in the U.S. than Sampras ever did.”

Wrong. That’s B.S. When he was playing Pete had far more popularity in the U.S. then Federer does now. Yes, Agassi helped, but Pete’s American, remember. Roger does a lot off-court, but most of that’s outside of the U.S.

Naydal: “SI is irrelevant.”

True, if you live outside the U.S. or you if you don’t know how to read. But here in America it isn’t. SI is the top sports magazine in the country. It’s hardly irrelevant.

As roojah writes, SI just doesn’t care much for tennis. That unfortunately true. Then again, who in the US sports media does care about tennis?

And I would agree with roojah that the Australian Open was barely considered a Slam until the 90s, when the players finally began to show up after the tournament/ATP got their act together.

December 17th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

“If anything the American media is constantly trying to belittle Federer and all his accomplishments-You want commercials with your American players that’s fine but then again the reason as to why Federer is Federer is because he outshines them in every single department of the game so logically if i wanted to sell a product or an idea or whatever then i would definitely rush to use someone as great as him as my frontman rather than other mediorcre players. THE GUY IS A LIVING LEGEND AND HE SELLS!”

I don’t hear or see anything written that belittles Federer. On the contrary he’s got ESPN announcrs and Tennis Channel’s announcers by the tongue. Jason Goodall refers to Federer as “World’s No.1”, every other player by their name. Cliff Drysdale drools over Federer I guess because Fed is part South African, and the others keep sayiong he’s the best ever. He has not passed Sampras’ 6 years as No. 1, nor has he won 14 slams, but he is the best ever. He does not do any charity work for the US kids or underprivileged. He goes to South Africa. But, he has aligned himself with Tiger Woods and Pete Sampras to get the American dollars. It’s not a matter of them getting the best to sell a product he gets the opportunity because of who he is friendly with in this country, Tiger Woods. WHY DIDN’T HE BEFRIEND ANOTHER aMERICAN PLAYER THAT IS NOT A nO. 1 PLAYER. BECAUSE HE IS TOO SHREWD FOR THAT. I hope that he sells enough razor blades to pay for his bonus. I think our Country is far too generous to him.

“And considering that golf has similar lineage to tennis (…golf came from England just as tennis did), it makes no sense that Tiger is an SI fave and Fed isn’t. Quite frankly, it’s easy to see how Federer fans would be wrankled by what is nothing less than a snub ” HE IS NOT AN AMERICAN, THIS MAGAZINE IS FOR AMERICAN SPORTSMEN.

December 17th, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Von dude, how do you expect american media to play up the american tennis players? Do you want to take a wild guess as to the no. of sets roddick, blake, isner, ginepri and querry, all put together, won agaist king-fed this year. I am not talking matches. JUST FREAKING SETS.

The answer would be one more than the no. of matches they won against him in the last 4yrs (which incase you are not aware = 0). So please stop about tennis media not being nice to american tennis players. the american tennis media like the rest of american media is jingoistic enough. if they had enough talented players, they would call the US open the world series, like they do with most of their games. Face up to the facts, USA is in a bubble of its own. To most in USA, the world is their own country. You have absolutely zilch idea of what is happening in more dynamic places like europe or china or india. Most americans are not even intelligent enough to acknowledge tennis as the main sport that connects them to the world. They live in a stupid world of american football, baseball, ice hockey and basket ball. Look at the real world which enjoys the real football, rugby, hockey and cricket. I am sure most americans cant even comprehend the dumbness of the games they watch. It is too sad americans cant appreciate more intelligent and skill based games. Basket-ball is an exception but the other three games are examples of how games get popular with americans if you make them more stupid. Thank god more intelligent nations like china and india are evening the power in this world so that intelligent sports like tennis can thrive. Imagine a world where there is only stupid games like football, hockey, wrestling and baseball on TV and media.

December 18th, 2007 at 10:49 am

And federer fans should let go of SI. It is almost like SI is reveling in their -ve image. Notoriety sells better than an intelligent sport like tennis to SI’s dumb audience. That is the sad way of how things work in this country. A guy who goes on a mass-killing spree gets more media coverage than all the noble deeds a lot of tennis players, non-american and american do. I cant think of many american sports which have as many genuinely charitable players like tennis does. that my friends is not what sells. dog-fights, steroids or mid-match brawls – now we are talking!

mr.vach, thanks for the article. for good or bad, i look forward to your articles :) that’s right you have just met your 1st fan ;) just kidding, but is there any other site to catch your articles or is this the frequency we ought to get used to?

December 18th, 2007 at 10:59 am

That’s right Kash, tennis requires the most intelligence and skill of any sport. Look at me, I went to Harvard and incredibly I’m rarely the smartest guy on the court. But I still got the Top 5 in the world.

I admit I never played baseball or football, my intelligence was never tested. However some of the those Euro sports like soccer, cricket, bike racing, handball and even darts all take tremendous aptitude.

December 18th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

I totally agree , Scud should B given another chance , it would B amazing 2 see him back on court & there isn’t a better place than the OZ to start from :)
but unfortunatly Scud pulled off the playing off coz he’s gonna undergo ANOTHER knee sergury :(

December 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I don’t believe that SI is strictly an American based magazine. And if it is Amero-centric, than it does itself a great disservice. Ignoring a man who’s won 12 majors over a 5 year period is nothing less than inexcusable. How can you proclaim yourself to be a professional sports magazine and ignore one of the most dominant athletes of all time. Tennis does get less exposure than golf, but still, the guy is a brilliant player that comes along very 30 or 40 years. And Federer is an excellent role model as athletes go.

Whether SI wants to admit or not, Federer is newsworthy. The man is re-writing the record book. Borg was on 6 SI covers. Six!!! You can’t hide behind the “SI is an American based magazine” when Borg was on an SI cover 6 times and he was Swedish. I cannot explain why they don’t want to put the guy on a cover. Perhaps SI editors are out of touch.

December 18th, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Kash, you are so right about “USA is in a bubble of its own,” that is why our American Consulate offices throughout the world have long lines for visas to get into this Country. And you’re right that we are “dumb,”, yes dumb, dumb, dumb, to give them visas. We should lock our doors and let them stay in their intelligent countries and there would be no biokering and fighting.

I don’t care what you think of Roddick, Blake and all of the American tennis players, I feel they are super human beings. Andy Roddick started his own foundation at 18, what has the great Federer done for charities. Not to mention Andre Agassi’s School for the underprivileged in Vegas. Our tennis players are involved in many charities and they do it for people not known to them, not for how much publicity they can garner.

“Look at the real world which enjoys the real football, rugby, hockey and cricket. I am sure most americans cant even comprehend the dumbness of the games they watch.”

Kash, dude: I am aware of all those games. I was born British, educated in Europe and now live in this super, terrific country known as the United States of America. Your Real football, is correctly referred to as “Association Football”, which is known as soccer in America. “Rugby” is the British name for American Football, with less padding and helmets, the concept is the same and there is American Ice Hockey, which entails having super skating skills. We don’t have cricket. But, cricket is not a very technical game, it’s hitting one over the boundary line for 4 or 6. It’s not much different than a baseball homerun. You left out billiards, which Americans call pool. Do you know about “Rounders”, it’s a girl’s game of baseball, it’s played at the girls’ schools in England, and then there’s Lawn Tennis,referred to as tennis in America.

“Most americans are not even intelligent enough to acknowledge tennis as the main sport that connects them to the world.” You’re are so very, very correct — we are so dumb, that is why Dwight Davis,a Harvar student,started the “Davis Cup”, and his intention was that all countries could be unified through tennis,(There goes those dumb Americans again starting a dumb tradition of unification.) and Kash dude, do you know what just happened on 12/2/2007, the United States won the Davis Cup. Not bad for a country that’s so dumb, and are not “even intelligent enough to acknowledge tennis as the main sport that connects them to the world.” I think we just hit one over the boundary for a 6, by winning the Davis Cup, don’t you think, Kash, dude.

In my opinion, even though Andy, James and the others are 0 against the great federer, they are patriotic enough to represent their country without anyone having to bend their arms.
THOSE GUYS SHOULD BE ON THE SI COVER!!!!

But I think you should check your stats, Roddick took a set from federer at the U.S. Open in 2006, when Tiger Woods was prominently visible sitting in Federer’s box, Ginepri got a set at the U.S. Open, and Isner a few months ago won a set and don’t forget our LEGEND Pete Sampras won a whole match, which the pro-federer writers headlined, “Federer Let’s Sampras win.” I hope Sampras does not play anymore matches with him because it’s going to be a catch-22 situation, if he wins it’s going to be the same headline all over again, and if he loses, well only God know what will be written.

I am so sick of the fact that the only whiners, complainers and validation seekers, are the federer fans. There isn’t a decent Tennis site to post on that’s not monopolised by the over- zealous federer fans. If a fan of another athlete posts anything about their favorite athlete, they are shred to pieces. And what’s even more pathetic is the fact that you want the dumb Americans to put your player on our magazine cover. IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN! Stop pulling your hair out, accept it, the Americans are really dumb and stubborn. If the U.S. is so bad why, oh why, do you want your favorite player to be in our magazines and product adverisements. It’s just ludicrous. If federer got into our dumb magazine people would be calling or writing to SI querying: “Who is this federer guy.” And why doesn’t federer have other world-recognized friends but two dumb American? You sure got one over on me, Kash, dude. Incidentally, I am not a dude, unless my gender has changed. Bye, Kash, dude.

December 18th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

James Blake: Are you keeping your Davis Cup replica all shined up and pretty. That is a beautiful replica of the real thing. Dwight Davis would be happy that a Harvard guy helped the US win his cup. Enjoy!! Are you back on earth or still on Mount Olympus?

December 18th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

SG: “Tennis does get less exposure than golf, but still, the guy is a brilliant player that comes along very 30 or 40 years. And Federer is an excellent role model as athletes go.”

Whatever happened to Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, et al., did they disappear from the planet, or is federer the only brilliant one. I am dazzled by his brilliance. Role model?

December 19th, 2007 at 12:24 am

Von, dude, thanks for the recognition. At least someone remembers that WE WON THE DAVIS CUP!

I am actually in my backyard, watching my dogs play soccer. The bloodhound just scored again. Hooray!

December 19th, 2007 at 2:01 am

James: You’re welcome. If you have time take a look at my prior post, viz., !2/18/2007,@ 10.40 p.m. I wrote an epistle. I have to stop posting on these sites because my blood pressure is rising. My Achilles heel is the Davis cup players and our two top 10 players, e.g., you and Andy.

It seems you are back on earth. I am glad your bloodhound scored. Mazeltov!

December 19th, 2007 at 4:07 am

Sorry for “…Poussis” knee injury, but as much as I liked “Scud” and his game, I think younger players should get their chance now.

December 19th, 2007 at 10:08 am

“cricket is not a very technical game, it’s hitting one over the boundary line for 4 or 6. It’s not much different than a baseball homerun.” Er – no, Von. Cricket is a game about as technical as it gets. Surprising, really, that someone who is British born should not be aware of this. Meanwhile, they do say that converts to a cause are always the most enthusiastic. Nothing like an ex smoker to extoll the virtues of nonsmoking. The most fanatical anticommunists tended to be former communists, and today some of the most tiresome evangelicals (all evangelicals are tiresome, of course, but some are more tiresome than others) proudly proclaim that once they were atheists until they saw the light.

I am afraid you sound a bit like that, Von, with your extra superduper American patriotism. (The reason people queue up to come to the US by the way is exactrly the same reason they queue up to get into Europe; in a desperately overcrowded world, these are rich havens; I’m afraid it is not American, or European, values, which are the attraction: on the contrary, they are likely to bring with them their own, sometimes repellent values – in their attitudes to women for example).

America is a great country, which sometimes does good things, sometimes evil – as is the way with great countries throughout history. If it wants to dominate a sport, it probably can, because it has the resources – see athletics and golf. I daresay if the Americans put their minds to it, they could dominate tennis, too. But they don’t see any need to, Americans generally seem pretty relaxed about this, I wonder why you are not, Von? Meanwhile, your attacking people like Drysdale and McEnroe, J for extolling the virtues of Federer strikes me as peculiar. I don’t know American commentary, but John McEnroe on British television is fair (as well as extremely acute, not to mention entertaining), and does not in any sense go overboard on Federer. He is, furthermore, clearly an American patriot, but in an understated way. Is that the problem? That he doesn’t jump up and down waving a flag?

Federer is a player of exquisite and exceptional skills. It is not surprising that people who knowe their tennis, as John McEnroe and Cliff Drysdale certainly do, should derive pleasure in watching him. They understand what’s in front of them and, furthermore, that it won’t be there for ever. Questions concerning “nationalism” are just about the last things on their minds.

Whether Federer, or Roddick, or Agassi, are the most generous in this business of charities I have no idea, nor do you, and personally I don’t care. I am a bit suspicious anyway of people who go out of their way to advertise their work for charity – and that includes all three of the above. No doubt they do a good job, let’s leave it at that. It should be of no interest on a tennis blog. And playing for your country? Sure, that’s ok. Another form of egotism of course – selfless it is not – but that’s ok too, that’s the human condition. Don’t dress it up as something it isn’t, that’s all.

Federer, like all successful champions, is deeply singleminded, and he will do whatever he deems necessary to further his career. So do they all, that’s how it goes. We’re not here to make naive moral judgements which will certainly get it laughably wrong. We’re here to watch, and be dazzled by, great athletes doing wonderful things with the tennis racket. If one of them happens to do it better than anyone else at the moment, this doesn’t mean you don’t rate the others. But hopefully you don’t let patriotism, jingoism and so on cloud your judgement as to what is in front of your eyes.

So if American commentators focus on Federer at the expense of their own players – so says Von, no idea if it is true – then I say all credit to the American commentators. They have not allowed emotion to interfere with the essence of their trade – which is to report the truth as they see it, and not as they know others (and maybe even themselves) want it.

December 19th, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Von,

Federer has dominated the sport in a way that no other player has. Not Sampras, not Borg. I’m not a big fan of Federer. I’m not alwys thrilled with some his antics in regards to how he handles losses and some of his attire. But, is the guy a great player? Definitely. The greatest? Possibly. If Sampras and Borg have 9 SI covers between them, doesn’t Federer deserve at least one. Agassi has 2 SI covers. Can you really say Agassi was a better player than Federer?

This has nothing to do with being American or anit-American. It’s about respect. SI reveals itself to be nothing more than a sensationalist tabloid at this point in time if it solely focuses on American athletes. There is a world of great ahtletes outside America. Ironicaly, Sampras was on an SI cover after winning his first major in 1990. Federer has won 12 majors and the guy doesn’t get any love from SI. That’s just wrong.

Whether Federer is Davis Cup hero or not, the guy can hit a ball like very few (if any) ever have. Do I think that SI should give attention to USA’s win? Definitely. Maybe even a cover as they hadn’t won it since I believe 1995. That being said, Fed is being dissed.

December 19th, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Grendel: I suppose you are Kash’s spokesperson. That’s fine. And as for your remarks: “Meanwhile, they do say that converts to a cause are always the most enthusiastic.” if that’s how you see me, then that’s fine by me, it doesn’t bother me. Write away as much as you want. I see your posts, you are one of those “take charge” types who has to take up the gauntlet for everyone. Does it make you feel intelligent and self-righteous? Then bravo for you. Write on. One British writer on the topic of World War II stated: Churchill took the Englash Language and sent it to war….” Is this what you are attempting ro do? Using your writing skills to defend other people’s battles? Bully for you!

I suppose you agree with Kash’s degrading comments, which you have selectively left out, about Americans: “Look at the real world which enjoys the real football, rugby, hockey and cricket. I am sure most americans cant even comprehend the dumbness of the games they watch.” Instead, you decided to give some insight about cricket. “Er – no, Von. Cricket is a game about as technical as it gets.”

My father and two cousins were cricketers. My dad was a captain and 2 cousins players, and I am not talking about playing on the sidewalk, I mean important matches, they were famous. What makes it a very technical game? The strategy they employ or remembering not to put their leg before the wicket? I think if you want to say technical, then baseball is too, they have a round bat to try to hit a round ball. Cricket has a flat bat about 5″ wide bat. Is there much of a difficulty hitting a ball that way? Agreed, there’s more to just hitting the ball, there’s strategizing, but baseballers have to do the same thing. Every sport has its own degree of skill and technicality, and who is to say that another country’s games are dumb. He stated: “I am sure most americans cant even comprehend the dumbness of the games they watch.” So let me get this right. Most Americans are dumb, unintelligent and lacking in comprehension. Then we deserve kudos for being able to survive in a country so lacking in grey matter, and making it a world power.
“They live in a stupid world of american football, baseball, ice hockey and basket ball.”

Tell me something Grendel: “they are likely to bring with them their own, sometimes repellent values – in their attitudes to women for example).” You’re joking? Right? You have just attacked the whole Asian, Indian, and Middle Eastern population. I would say that you are treading in deep water, be careful.

“And playing for your country? Sure, that’s ok. Another form of egotism of course – selfless it is not – but that’s ok too, that’s the human condition. Don’t dress it up as something it isn’t, that’s all.” I am a pretty good judge of character, you might disagree, but then you disagree with everything, but I don’t think those guys who were on the Davis Cup squad for the U.S. played for ego and were not being selfless. They had tears in their eyes. They made sure they stayed out of other tournaments just to stay healthy to play Davis Cup. Just because federer is selfish and unpatriotic, means that other players are the same way. I bet if he played and his country won you would say he is selfless and patriotic.

“I daresay if the Americans put their minds to it, they could dominate tennis, too. But they don’t see any need to, Americans generally seem pretty relaxed about this, I wonder why you are not, Von?” You have got to be kidding. This is ludicrous. I have seen or read it all. I have seen some other posts by you to other people and I must say that you are just reaching. Instead of being angry with you I have to laugh. You are way over in left field.

“Federer, like all successful champions, is deeply singleminded, and he will do whatever he deems necessary to further his career. So do they all, that’s how it goes.” And just a paragraph above this statement, you wrote: “But they don’t see any need to, Americans generally seem pretty relaxed about this.” You just contradicted yourself.
“So if American commentators focus on Federer at the expense of their own players – so says Von, no idea if it is true” If you are given to exaggeration, I am not, and by no means am I a liar. You want to say I am lying, do it outright, don’t hide behind a smoke screen of manipulated words.
With you in mind and others like you, I wrote this:”I am so sick of the fact that the only whiners, complainers and validation seekers, are the federer fans. There isn’t a decent Tennis site to post on that’s not monopolised by the over- zealous federer fans.” Have you read any other posts from non-federer fans saying that another player should be oin SI?

When you answer someone’s post, do it to the full and correct extent, don’t just pick up little bits and pieces. You’ve said a whole lot about bits and pieces and the real issues you have chosen to discard. As I stated these sites from the reporters down to the posters are all pro-Federer. I am sure if there were many Americans posting they would not let Kash get away with his stupid comments about Americans being dumb and unintelligent. And, if there are any, I can guarantee one thing, you’ll be the spokesperson.

December 19th, 2007 at 10:28 pm

SG: I know that you mean well, and I guess that if you could see Federer through my eyes, you would not say he is being dissed. You have stated that you don’t always agree with his behavior and clothing and some of his antics. That’s where I am coming from. Federer’s shoes have gotten too big for his feet. He has an invisible halo around his head, that I suppose is his brilliance, he is very unsportsmanlike and extrem-e-ly arrogant.

What do I mean by that? I watch a lot of tennis and I read a lot of articles, and I say this without any dislike whatsoever, from what I see and read, he is a phoney. Some of his statements are contradictory and he is hungry for recognition. Case in point, after a match one of the interviewers said to him, and I don’t remember it verbatim, “you broke Jimmy Connors record at being No.1 for —- weeks. Federer replies, “And Steffi Graf’s record too.” If that is not fishing for compliments then tell what is that. He is not just competing with the men but the women too. However, he has not broken Steff’s grand slam record of 21, I think, grand slams, and I bet he won’t remember to say it.

I feel that when someone gets an award, it not only encompasses how many records he has broken, but his speech, actions and selflessness should be taken into consideration. This guy is so crude. When he wins a match, he greets his opponent at the net, with a big smile. When it’s the other way around, his face is like a mask. At least the other competitors have some class, they don’t give him the big smile. He is a cry baby.

He played Sampras at his home in LA. He bragged to the press that he won. If he were a gentleman, he would have said “no comment.”

Truthfully, I don’t feel that he is being dissed. They don’t do it for the American players, why Federer? And, if you say SI is a sensationalist magazine, would you want him to be on the cover. I would think his fans would want him not to be in any way, form or fashion associated with that magazine.

When he played those exhibition matches with Sampras, and Sampras won the third. I am sure you’ve seen the big headline, Federer lets Sampras win. If Federer had any clas or valued Sampras in any way, don’t you think he should have made a statement to the press that Sampras won it fairly. He said nothing. But, on the other hand, Sampras has done two interviews and has made some glowing statements about Federer.

I am sorry SG, I don’t agree with you.

December 19th, 2007 at 11:02 pm

“Cricket is a game about as technical as it gets.”

I went to Harvard and I am puzzled by this assertion. Is it then more technical than baseball? If so, how? Hitting a 90-mph curveball is regarded as one of the toughest things to do in all of sport. Just ask Michael Jordan.

December 20th, 2007 at 12:25 am

James: Thanks for the assist.

Cricket, it’s not just the fast ball, because the have some fast bowlers, my dad was one, but most of the action is on the ground.

I am dealing with some die-hard Fed fans, who thinks Americans are dumb, and every adjective one can find to describe Americans. I guess you have read the blogs and my answers. If you haven’t read all, do me a favor and read them and be elightened (I am being facetious). These are all pro-Federer sites, however, my shoulders are broad (joke), I am a little person, and I have the whole of the Davis Cup Team to help me. What with Roddick, Bob and Mike and yourself. I would have thrown in P. Mc, but his shoulders aren’t big enough. I think I can manage. What I find difficult to understand is the rationale used to justify these statements. I guess the other guys would get a kick out of reading these posts.

Bye for now. We have to stop meeting like this.

December 20th, 2007 at 5:38 am

James Blake – cricket is a highly technical game, certainly. For instance,there’s all the different types of spin bowling – off spin (turning from right to left to a righthanded batsman, the index finger being used), leg spin (using the wrist, and left to right), googlies and chinamen whereby the wrist spinner, for example, fools the batsman by bowling an offspinner out of the back of his hand, the straight through ball when the batsman is playing for the accustomed spin. This leaves out of account flight through the air which, properly executed, can be highly deceptive to even skilled batsmen, variation of speed of course, not to mention length – which has to be done with particular care and skill to avoid giving juicy half volleys etc (interesting that in cricket, the half-volley is a delight to the batsman – in tennis, a potential nightmare).Naturally, the spin bowler, when he applies his art, has to take into account the condition of the pitch (crucial) and of the air, wind etc (important). That’s just spin bowlers. Then, you have all the various different types of fast bowler – but I daresay you get the point. However, I said nothing about baseball, because I know nothing about it. I am pleased to be informed by you, James Blake.

Von – hard to know quite where to begin with you. Suppose I’d better have a bash. No, of course I’m not a spokesman for Kash, do stop these silly conspiracy theories. I did not “selectively” leave out anything, since I was not replying to Kash. I’ve been watching you sounding off these these increasingly manic flag waving exercises on behalf of a country not even your own, on various threads, with a certain feeling of sympathy, actually. Having a manic side myself, I do recognize it in others and kind of empathise with it myself even if the person is talking complete rubbish. Which is why my tone to you was measured and even courteous. But alas, you didn’t recognize that. So what’s it to be, gloves off?

Your way of arguing, Von, is to quote something someone says, and then make no attempt to respond in a rational manner but instead make some emotive noises which carry little or no meaning. And you’re keen on the ad hominem insult. Thus, like it or not, it is true that Americans generally seem to be pretty relaxed about their position in world tennis (not remotely commensurate with their large and rich population). You are not, to put it mildly. Worth a comment, I’d have thought. You say I contradict myself by calling Fed singleminded and the Americans relaxed. You need to read what’s in front of you with a little more care. These two things have got nothing to do with each other. By “Americans”, of course I meant the population at large. Federer, like all champions, American or otherwise, is singleminded. About American commentators: I was not accusing you of lying; it did occur to me you might be mistaken, and I had no way of checking. About the Davis Cup: I’m probably in a minority here. I do think competing at team level can be another way of expressing ego, tears in the eyes or not, but my view will not be popular, and I expect I shouldn’t have expressed it so strongly. There’s room for genuine disagreement here.

Generally with you, Von, there isn’t much room for either agreement or disagreement. It is impossible to answer your increasingly wild “comments” on Federer. Knowing your tastes in this area – and to a degree respecting them, hatred is a formidable emotion which in a certain sense calls for consideration, and I have felt hatred so I know what is’s like, and how uncomfortable it is, you sound like a person in agony sometimes Von – I tried to keep off the subject of Federer. But you won’t have that, you will insist on bringing him in at every possible opportunity, assuming everything is always, in some mysterious way, about him. You sound quite obsessed, like a lover almost.

They say love and hate are just a breath away from each other.

December 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Von,

I respect your opinion even if we don’t agree on the issue.

December 20th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Actually, it occurs to me – on reflection – that some other instructive parallels might be drawn between tennis and cricket (or perhaps this is just far fetched, dunno what others think). For instance, I mentioned flight being a weapon of the spin bowler – he deceives the batsman in the air, with the result the batsman misses the ball altogether or pops the ball up for a catch to a fieldsman strategically placed or nicks it to the keeper or is even bowled. Think of a silky smooth player like Murray or Federer or Mecir stroking the ball over the net, deceiving his opponent in flight, so he possibly misses the return or hits it back poorly to gift his opponent a winner. Difference: for the good spin bowler, the use and variation of flight is a weapon in constant use; for the tennis player, perhaps more of a surprise shot.

Most spin bowlers are fairly predictable, like most anything anywhere, but the great ones can puzzle the greatest batsmen; the task of the latter, say, is to pick the googly, the “wrong ‘un”, by carefully scrutinising the bowler’s hand and arm on point of delivery (in an attempt to deduce which the ball will turn). The obvious analogy in tennis would be the receiver trying to pick which way the server is going. And the great server tends to deceive even the greatest player – thus Fed admitted he couldn’t pick Sampras’ serve the other week.

Length is all important. The defensive bowler, often medium fast (not, therefore, obviously “exciting”) ties even the talented batsman down with the view to eventually provoking him to hit out in frustration – thereby hopefully eliciting a mishit and perhaps a catch. Think of a good claycourt baseliner boring the other player, with perfect length, to the point where he tries to finish off the rally with an injudicious shot.

Remember that miraculous return by Fed off a ferocious Roddick serve in last year’s AO? It was just a block, but fired back at Roddick before he could barely move. Thus a great fast bowler might fire a ball into a batsman at immense speed, on a perfect length, only to gaze in astonishment, not to mention mortification, as the ball flies past him to the boundary. The batsman has simply blocked the ball, no attempt at a drive – with perfect timing, that is not necessary.

When I watch Santoro, with his funny litle chips, improvised volleys and lobs, I am reminded of certain one day batsmen, who rely on unorthodox shotmaking, nudging the ball past fielders without much power, but keeping the scoreboard ticking over, generally frustrating the opposition. Then you have the hitter; more often than not, he gets himself out much to the huge annoyance of everyone. But every now and then, he comes off, smacking the ball to all parts of the boundary. Who does one think of in tennis like this? How about Philippoussis? A controlled hitter, who can build an innings as well as beating the hell out of the ball – say the great Botham – who, in tennis, but Safin in his glory days?

I daresay all of this is highly tendentious, but it helps to pass the time, doesn’t it, until the tennis season begins again…….

December 20th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

One addendum to the foregoing, before everyone goes to sleep. There is another curious parallel. The most effective serves are not necessarily the fastest. There’s the great swing serve, and for some reason I can’t fathom, this tends to be lefty. Think of Ivaesevic (surely the best of all), McEnroe (not far behind), Rusedski, even Nadal (my bet is that as he matures, he will develop a great swing serve), and in some ways most telling of all, Patti Schnyder – she really has quite a slow serve but, when she gets the swing right,it’s quite as unreturnable as a Williams bomb. In cricket, noted swing bowlers are fast but not express (although the express bowler, as he gets older, naturally slows down and if he has the talent, turns to swing). The best ones also tend to be lefties. Why is this, what is it about leftarm action?

December 20th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Grendel: My first inclination was not to dignify the drivel you write with an intelligent answer. Because you do not want an intelligent answer, what you want is an opening to start an argument wherein you imagine yourself on a platform preaching and impressing others with the indepth knowledge you have amassed pertaining to tennis and the players, and any other subject that opens up. However, in this instance you are not seen, so you write. Hence,the micro dissertation you wrote about cricket and on several other subjects in your posts. Well, I guess if anyone lacked knowledge about cricket, the learned professor has outlined it in minute detail down to the last ball bowled.

I have observed your posts and they all follow the ssme pattern, viz., about 75 per cent of the people you attack are women. I can only assume that you have some kind of vendetta against women. You veer away from the subject matter and attack the person’s character and begin labeling them. The follwing pertains to me:

“I have been watching you sounding off these increasingly manic flag waving exercises on behalf of a country not even your own, on various threads, with a certain feeling of sympathy, actually. Having a manic side myself I do recognize it in others and kind of empathise with it myself even if the person is talking complete rubbish.”

“Your way of arguing, Von, is to quote something someone says, and then make no attempt to respond in a rational manner but instead make some emotive noises which carry little or no meaning. And you’re keen on the ad hominem insult.”

According to you, the resident Psychiatrist on this site, in gist, I am manic; and, I am a patriotic crackpot about a country that’s not my own;I write rubbish, and could probably be a liar, and I quote: “so says Von, no idea if it is true”

The USA is a country of immigrants. Shall I go into a micro dissertation to supposedly educate you about its beginnings? I won’t do that. I am much too comfortable with myself and whatever knowledge I possess to be that pathetic as to want to impress others on a particular subject matter.
Believe it or not, as far as I know, I am not manic. I am more sound in my mind than you can ever be. The stuff you write demonstrates that. I get fired up whenever there is an uncalled for atack on the United States or the Tennis players I like. And believe me there are several attacks. These sirtes are predominantly pro-federer and most of the posts are from Europeans or non-Americans. A lot of times I let stuff go but in this instance when you take another person’s post and begin an attack on me for answering that post, then I retalliate.

My patriotism for the Unired States is genuine. Even though I was not born here, I have lived here from my late teens to adulthood and my children were born in the USA. After living in the United States for 5 years one can apply for citizenship, so all things considered, this is my country and my home,and I am proud to be an American. England is my mother country but the United States is where I have lived for most of my life, so it is my country too.

I have made a mental note to desist from writing anything when you post, but on a few occasions I have deviated and have written a couple of sentences. This is mainly for self preservation, because I have read your posts on other sites and you really have some strong arguments with other women. You get on your platform and preach, a-n-d p-r-e-a-c-h. I did not want that to happen with me. I have tried my utmost to stay away from any arguments with you because I have sensed that you are not only reaching but you have a deep, compulsive and obsessive need to pick up on people’s comments and then demonstrate to them how knowledgeable you are, in an argumentative way.

I have seen your posts on Tennis Planet on many other topics and they are all along the same trend. It’s all about Federer and his wonderful mastery of the game. It’s a bit too much at times. Most of those posts are uncalled for.

Here are a few of your posts from other sites:
zola Says:

“grendel
I understand your misery. no need to take it out on Nadal. It was just an exhibition match. you can relax!

zola Says:
I have to add that I don’t agree that Fed was supposed to win twice and “let” Sampras win once. I think they get paid to come and play but they are more relaxed because it is not an official match.

“Fed wins millions a year. How many monies do you need to convince him to lose a match?”

grendel Says:
Well, at least Fed fans don’t go whimpering on endlessly about injury, real or imagined, when their darling Rafa hits the dust.

grendel Says:
oopsy. Should have said: as Nadal fans do, etc

grendel Says:
No, Zola, no misery – sorry. I actually predicted Sampras had a good chance. And expressed disbelief that Fed “let” Sampras win. And it’s not Nadal I was referring to. It was you, dear Zola, you and your chums – you’re the ones who always have a ready excuse when poor old Rafa troops disconsolately off the court. If it’s not injury, it’s tiredness, or perhaps the inexplicable hand of God, who doesn’t even exist anyway …. know what I mean?”

“b.t.w., several of Fed’s losses were certainly significant, not just RG. The loss to Nadal at Monte Carlo was a wake up call. As, more significantly, was the loss to Djokovic – also significant as a portent for the future, you can be sure Fed is now very aware indeed of a (fit and rested) Djokovic. And the losses to Nalbandian, given the sheer quality of play and the threat that Nalbandian represents, were of course significant. Everyone is waiting to see how Nalbandian does at AO. And, such is the mercurial nature of this strange fellow – tennis experts are just as much in the dark as the rest of us.” In that tone post one would think that you are Federer’s coach or advisor.

And, here’s another with Eva, on Tennis Planet site.

“grendel Says:
December 19, 2007 at 5:07 pm
“The trouble is Eva, you make a lot of wild accusations which often just don’t bear examination. On the Serb/Croat business, Brooke’s comment (on Eva, you need to calm down) tallies exactly with my own recollection. This is topic you need to be careful about – it is potentially incendiary, and Djokovic was, very maturely for such a youngster, trying to take the any possible heat out of the situation. Hatred, one might add, does not generally aid comprehension.”

“As for Djokovic on Fed, you seem to me to have got most of it quite wrong, although that doesn’t matter. I assumed Djokovic’s comment about people respecting Fed too much was the correct perception that many players tend to be beaten by Fed before they even enter the court. That is the wrong kind of respect, it is a kind of meek lying down. Last year at AO, Djokovic attracted a lot of attention for his “brash” remarks about beating Fed. But as he pointed out afterwards, everyone knows that Federer is the best player in the world, maybe even in history. But if you want to give yourself a chance of beating him, you simply cannot afford to go onto the court limp with admiration. You’ve got to believe you’ve got a chance – if you’re to have a chance.
Personally, I didn’t think Djokovic quite believed what he said – and it showed on the court. But his attitude was at least potentially right, and eventually, of course, paid off, at Montreal. You lay into him for his behaviour there, stripping shirt off and so on. Good grief, this was just youthful exuberance! Distasteful to some, perhaps, but essentially goodhumoured. And again, hatred has blinded you as to what he said. My distinct memory was that he was extremely respectful, and good humouredly pointed out that even Federer couldn’t win everything. The person who showed up really badly on that occasion was Federer; on this day, he was a sore loser, make no mistake. Does that affect my admiration for him? Not in the slightest. Apart from the fact that I am an incredibly bad loser myself, I absolutely understand that even the most sporting players – and I believe Fed is sporting – have their lapses. That is to be human, you know.”

“By the way, how can you possibly know that Djokovic’s ballbouncing is not a habit? Hatred, again, is informing your opinion. My suspicion is that it is, indeed, a habit, an embarrassing habit, and possibly one which should be attended to by the umpire – not sure. Meanwhile, Djokovic, for sure is no saint. But he’s ok. The kid’s ok. And boy, can he play tennis!”

You have appointed yourself Eva’s judge and jury. I have noticed that you use the word “hatred” a lot, and you transpose that emotion onto others. I believe you have a lot of hatred bottled up inside of you and in every instance you know what’s the other person’s problem.

There were several other posts along the same vein.

This is one of my favorites, you really outdid yourself. From the tone of this statement it seems that you can actually see what’s going on in the American players’ minds.

“I daresay if the Americans put their minds to it, they could dominate tennis, too. But they don’t see any need to, Americans generally seem pretty relaxed about this, I wonder why you are not, Von?”

“We’re here to watch, and be dazzled by, great athletes doing wonderful things with the tennis racket. If one of them happens to do it better than anyone else at the moment, this doesn’t mean you don’t rate the others. But hopefully you don’t let patriotism, jingoism and so on cloud your judgement as to what is in front of your eyes.”

In essence, what you are saying, alludes to the fact or fallacy in your mind, that the reason the Americans are not better tennis players is contingent upon their mindset. They are not taking their tennis seriously — they are generally relaxed. Is this your rating of the American tennis players?

In summary, Grendel, you are again out in left field. If you understood baseball you would understand what I mean. I do not have any interest in Federer and I do not mention him first in any posts, I merely reply to other people’s posts o him. I do admit that I am long-winded sometimes, bit that’s my way. I try my very best not to attack anyone’s character, that’s not my way. I think one of us on this site is enough. Can you imagine two of us! Heaven forbid. And being obsessed with him like a lover. Girl, are you crazy? I know so many drool over him, sorry to disappoint you, I am not one of them. Get real!

What you have done by your nonsensical behavior is turn me off from this site too. You’re on every site. It’s amazing and all of your posts have the same know-it-all tone. Enjoy.

December 20th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Grendel: During the time I was typing this post, which took quite a bit of time, I see that you have 2 other posts on cricket. So we have gone from just a smattering of cricket mentioned by Kash and my reply to him on cricket, to you and a dissertation on cricket. Are you doing a thesis on cricket? I know you are mine and some other women’s self-appointed psychiatrist, but seriously, do you think anyone is really and truly interested in what you perhaps flatter yourself on your profound knowledge of cricket? Some Americans don’t even know what cricket is. We live in a bubble, remember, and America=the world.

You claim “you sound like a person in agony sometimes Von – I tried to keep off the subject of Federer. But you won’t have that, you will insist on bringing him in at every possible opportunity, assuming everything is always, in some mysterious way, about him. You sound quite obsessed, like a lover almost.”

I think you are referring to yourself. Look at your post about Roddick’s serve and Federer blocking it at the AO last year. Who’s talking, you. You can’t leave him out of anything, can you?

I suppose your lasr word before you go to sleep is F-e-d–e—r—-e—–r.ZZZZZ-ZZZZZ-z-z-z-z.

December 20th, 2007 at 11:26 pm

SG: Thanks. How about if we agree to disagree?
That’s fair.

December 20th, 2007 at 11:28 pm

How flattering to have such a committed fan – even if it’s only an antifan – following me about all over the place. Do I come across as preachy? I’m not a judge of that, but, on reflection, I can see that it might be so. That’s embarrassing, since it is a trait I dislike in others. I thought the thing about cricket might be entertaining – but perhaps it isn’t. My knowledge of it certainly isn’t profound, any cricket expert would smile at my shallow flounderings – but I did want to clarify that it is certainly a technical game, and then I got kind of carried away, it’s called enthusiasm you know.

About women: I am not aware of taking a person’s sex into account when posting – but we can easily deceive ourselves in these matters, and maybe I need to have a think. I am in your debt, though Von, for all those quotes of myself you have thrown at me, since I do very much regret my absolutely over the top and churlish response to Zola. I think there may have been another even worse one, but I don’t think I can bear to go back and check. However, I certainly do not regret anything I have said to you, Von. You’re something else – and then again.

I didn’t take another person’s post and then attack you – conspiracy again (remember how you started off:”I can see you’re the spokesman for just about everyone” – to Sensational Safin). I was responding, in my mind, to a whole series of rants from you – and just picked on the last, I suppose it was one too many. Foolish of me, given how emotionally driven you are. Oh, well, one learns some thing every day – or does one? Perhaps it is silly writing even this. But given that you have outdone even yourself for insult this time, I suppose I should make some sort of attempt to defend myself.

For instance, you repeat the “liar” thing even though I explained that I wasn’t accusing you of that – I just didn’t trust your judgement, you might have been mistaken. But pointing things out doesn’t work with you. You just carry on as if nothing has been said.

You may have a point in mocking me for armchair psychology – very bad habit of mine, wish I could get rid of it, difficult things, habits. But of course I wasn’t quite so silly as to suggest you were in love with Federer. It was just an analogy, lovers can be obsessive and so on, but I suppose I wasn’t clear. But you are rewriting history when you say: “I do not have any interest in Federer and I do not mention him first in any posts, I merely reply to other people’s posts on him”. On the contrary, in your very first post, you came sailing in, accusing Federer of being “a liar and I have always felt a very skilful one at that.” Not to mention inordinately obsessed with money, and so on.

You don’t seem able to read what’s in front of you, thus you quote me “they are likely to bring with them their own, sometimes repellent values – in their attitudes to women for example).” and then comment : ” You’re joking? Right? You have just attacked the whole Asian, Indian, and Middle Eastern population.” You missed the key word “sometimes”. In England, we have a lot of problems with mediaeval attitudes to women – routine beatings up, even extending on occasion to kidnap and murder, on the part of the husband or father who believes he is acting as of right. It is a real problem, and you could argue that Britain is ultimately responsible by virtue of its colonial interference in the first place. Still, we have to deal with the here and now. Of course it is scurrilous and just cheap point scoring to accuse me of attacking Asians as such. The point I made was really incidental – the question was why do people come to the West, and I make the point that we shouldn’t flatter ourselves it is because of our values (although there are exceptions, of course).

I don’t know whether you’re not getting something is wilful or part of that bubble you seem to inhabit. Thus you quote me:
I daresay if the Americans put their minds to it, they could dominate tennis, too. But they don’t see any need to, Americans generally seem pretty relaxed about this, I wonder why you are not, Von?” and then say: “In essence, what you are saying, alludes to the fact or fallacy in your mind, that the reason the Americans are not better tennis players is contingent upon their mindset. They are not taking their tennis seriously — they are generally relaxed. Is this your rating of the American tennis players?”

All this is such a gross misunderstanding, you feel like, I dunno, counting to 543 perhaps. My point was that it is the American PEOPLE who are relaxed about their country’s relative lack of tennis success. It’s nothing to do with tennis players’ mindset or anything else. It is the American people who don’t seem to mind, (perhaps they don’t take tennis very seriously, I don’t know) – except for Von. She minds terribly. I may be wrong about this, but I find there is something slightly pathetic about an American going gung-ho here, and it is to the credit of most Americans, from my standpoint, that they don’t. They are just too big a country, which is so very successful in so many fields, it doesn’t seem to matter enormously that they don’t do as well at tennis as you might expect. But I also think that if the American people demanded success, then attitudes would change, and very likely success over and beyond winning Davis Cup would come. Americans seem to be able to work miracles like that – when they put their collective will to it. But fortunately for tiny countries, like Serbia and Croatia say, America doesn’t. It’s mature enough to be relaxed. Personally, I am glad, not because I am anti-American, but because I like to see lots of countries in the mix. When I was young, it was all Australia (mainly) and America up to a point – a mite tedious.

This business of Federer. I am not the ardent obssessive fan you take me to be, and I can only assume the mistake comes from this loathing you have for him. It’s an all or nothing mindset. Sure, I am a fan, and I have been defensive of him in the past. But I am open to sensible criticisms which are made of him. That business with the attire – along with others, I opposed SG and jane on this one, mainly because I sensed their dislike of him and this provoked a reaction. Very childish of me, I daresay. But in many ways, my heart wasn’t in it. No doubt Fed can behave with vanity and with folly, and greed too, he’s no saint. But he doesn’t seem to me to be over the top in this regard, and given the pressures he is subject to, my own position has been, and remains, it is remarkable how relatively unassuming he is. You can argue with this, of course, and perhaps after all jane and Zola, eg, are nearer to the truth than me. I don’t know. But I do know, Von, that your attempted character assassination of Federer is at best silly, at worst contemptible. Take your pick.

You remark:”I have noticed that you use the word “hatred” a lot, and you transpose that emotion onto others. I believe you have a lot of hatred bottled up inside of you and in every instance you know what’s the other person’s problem”. You have a point. I wouldn’t quite accept your wording, but however you look at it, it’s not good.

Which brings me to my final point. For a long time I have been conscious that I post far too much. For one thing, a lot of the people on this blog are proper tennis players, I am not, and I think there is something a bit grotesque in being so opinionated when I don’t really know about tennis. Dancevic Fan first picked this up, I don’t think you can really know about tennis unless you play it quite a bit which, for various reasons, I can’t say I have done. That’s not to say there isn’t room for the armchair enthusiast, but obviously he should be a lot less strident and opinionated than me. I’ve tried cutting it down, but it seems to be like smoking – all or nothing. So Von, in one way I – and others – am in your debt. I’ve got the impulse now to quit.

By the way – girl????? Oh,Boy!

December 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Von, you are ridiculous. All your patriotism is such bull shit. All I get from your comments is that you are allowing yourself to be blinded. I seriously cannot believe all the shit Federer is getting from you people. So what if he wants recognition? So what if he points out some of the records he’s broken? For all the amazing things he’s accomplished he gets half of the respect he deserves. So he’s a little smug, look at George Clooney! The guy produced a giant smug cloud that floated around the whole western part of the country. So he’s not as perfect as he tries to make himself appear, so what? No one’s perfect. He’s a f*cking UNICEF Ambassador, and he’s not doing enough for charity? Why don’t we look at f*cking Kobe Bryant? He’s an incredible athlete but look at the type of person he is! (Quick sidenote, Drysdale doesn’t know what he’s talking about, only Cahill and Gilbert are good ESPN commentators). But anyone, whether you’re into tennis or not, can recognize Federer’s brilliance on the court, and that’s what matters when you’re evaluating an athlete. You’re not supposed to look at his interviews to decide how great his is, as a tennis player, his racquet does the talking. Federer fans are whiners and everyone who is not a Federer fan bashes him without any hint of letting up. How can you not be a fan of someone who plays sublime tennis? Federer has always been a sore loser, since his junior days. He’s not a sore winner, though, and that’s more important. He gives credit to his opponents no matter what the situation. And when does he have a big smile on his face? What are you talking about? Show me 3 matches where he smiles at his opponent after winning. All I can say is that you’re foolish.

December 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Grendel:

Do not quit. I, for one, enjoy reading your posts. You are quite balanced and sane in your comments. So, FWIW, continue your posts. I may not post a lot but you can be sure I will be reading. Von is, mentally, hardly a 6yr old. You dont want to take his posts seriously. Here is a gem from his totally innane reply to my post:

“But I think you should check your stats, Roddick took a set from federer at the U.S. Open in 2006, when Tiger Woods was prominently visible sitting in Federer’s box, Ginepri got a set at the U.S. Open, and Isner a few months ago won a set and don’t forget our LEGEND Pete Sampras won a whole match,”

This in reponse to what I posted:

“Do you want to take a wild guess as to the no. of sets roddick, blake, isner, ginepri and querry, all put together, won agaist king-fed this year.”

Now, what are we sane people to make of Von’s reading comprehension expertise? I ask him the no. of sets US players won from Fed in a competitive match THIS year. And dude comes at me with roddick winning a set last year and sampras winning a match in an EXHIBITION match. And tops it off with a “go check your statistics” comment. Er…. I would…. if you can make a decent attempt to understand what the other person has said before you mouth off your stupid advices!

And James blake:

It is is no secret that US doesn’t perform well in games where strategy comes to the fore-front. Americans take pride in making fun of people who are intelligent and smart branding them geeky and nerdy. They revel in a tradition of worshipping bad boys. Mcenroe/connors/Agassi are more popular than sampras. It is almost like they are afraid of people pursuing perfection. They need to find a flaw to be able to relate to people. Not the smartest way to live life.

The more big the role of smarts/strategy in a event, the farther you will find americans from that game/event. Thank god for immigration. The millions of chinese/indians/iranians/jewish/ turkish people who made it to the shores of USA and help keep the nation running good inspite of an intelligent leader like the one you smart ones chose not once but twice! Hail the US of A.

December 21st, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Grendel:
I have just glanced through your micro dissertation, because I know a lot of it is garbage and will address only a few salient points. So if I don’t address anything verbatim it’s not because I am a 6 yearold, as Kash said or I am not able to read what’s in front of me, as you state. This kind of nonsense is quite tedious and boring. I am not going to behave like you do. Posting on various sites and antagonizing people. Just for the fun ot it.

The following, in your own words, is an example:

“That business with the attire – along with others, I opposed SG and jane on this one, mainly because I sensed their dislike of him and this provoked a reaction. Very childish of me, I daresay. But in many ways, my heart wasn’t in it.”

“I am in your debt, though Von, for all those quotes of myself you have thrown at me, since I do very much regret my absolutely over the top and churlish response to Zola. I think there may have been another even worse one, but I don’t think I can bear to go back and check. However, I certainly do not regret anything I have said to you, Von. You’re something else – and then again.”

It’s not only Zola. It’s Eva, Lulu, SG, Jane and many, many others.

Here’s another: “For a long time I have been conscious that I post far too much.” You cannot stop, it’s innate. You like to demonstrate to the world how intelligent you are.

People like you do not like anyone who can stand up to them, or who has an opinion of their own. You like to contol the show. You just want “yes” people.” As I stated before this is a pro-Federer site, and no one else has a right to disagree with you and the others who are Federer fans.

I can guarantee that if at anytime you see another post from me, you will be attacking me. That’s OK. I know your type. You are just a bloody bag of wind. This is a hobby for you. Get a life! Please. I am sure there is something more productive for you to do, than just be arbitrary, just for the fun of it.

You can take all the garbage you write and put it down the incinerator. Or, you can do one of the following: PUT A SOCK ON IT; STOW IT; OR STIFLE!

December 21st, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Kash dude:

“Do you want to take a wild guess as to the no. of sets roddick, blake, isner, ginepri and querry, all put together, won agaist king-fed this year.”

Thank you for enlightening me as to what age group I belong to. So sorry, dude, I did not see the word “this” year. And I answered. I admit I did not read your statement carefully, as I should have before replying. However, if I am a 6 yearold who cannot comprehend, then I am running true to form for my age group. I don’t think many 6 yearolds would know the answer either.

“Now, what are we sane people to make of Von’s reading comprehension expertise? I ask him the no. of sets US players won from Fed in a competitive match THIS year. And dude comes at me with roddick winning a set last year and sampras winning a match in an EXHIBITION match. And tops it off with a “go check your statistics” comment. Er…. I would…. if you can make a decent attempt to understand what the other person has said before you mouth off your stupid advices!”

Well,there’s one thing I am positive about is that neither you nor Grendel are in the “sane” category. Her acknowledgement to the following, speaks volumes:

“I opposed SG and jane on this one, mainly because I sensed their dislike of him and this provoked a reaction. Very childish of me, I daresay. But in many ways, my heart wasn’t in it.”

You stated: “Thank god for immigration. The millions of chinese/indians/iranians/jewish/ turkish people who made it to the shores of USA …”

Since you are being so picky, I think that even a six year old would know that a capital letter should be used when you are talking about nationality. And, advice is singular, not “advices”. Just doesn’t exist.

So, Kash dude. I stand corrected. Are you big enough to say you used a wrong word.

December 21st, 2007 at 10:50 pm

sensationalsafin: There is no need to use expletives. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not blinded. You feel Federer is brilliant, I don’t agree. But you will say I am BS-ing if I gave you my reasons, so I won’t.

“He’s not a sore winner, though, and that’s more important.” How can anyone be a sore winner. I don’t understand what you’re saying.

“I seriously cannot believe all the shit Federer is getting from you people.” But it was OK for so much garbage to be written about Sampras.

I am not going to write anything more on this subject or this site. Grendel does enough of that for everyone on this and all of the other sites. As I have stated before in one of my posts, this and all of the other Tennis sites are pro-Federer, except for the Tennis Channel, and I am outnumbered. I am not obsessed with posting and I won’t suffer withdrawal. However, I think it is pathetic that other non-Federer fans do not have the luxury of posting without being ridiculed. It should work both ways. Case in point, what’s the ratio of Federer fans to non-Federer fans posting on this site? Probably 4 to 1.

Enjoy your posts!

December 21st, 2007 at 11:23 pm

Just for the record, I am -er – a bloke, or think I am, but I may be mistaken (since Von apparently thinks otherwise, despite my hesitant little hint) and though I have indeed (mea culpa, mea culpa!) posted endlessly on this site, I have not (though I hesitate to contradict Von, who knows about these things) posted much elsewhere; a few times on Tennis Planet, and probably under 10 times on Tennis.com. That’s it – quite enough, though, indeed.

Kash, thanks for your kind words. I expect a few eyebrows will be raised at me being described as “balanced” – but, sod ’em, I say! I do think the American people are to be commiserated with rather than censured for the sorry phenomenon of George Bush. Remember, he didn’t even get properly elected first time round, and only wriggled in thanks to the machinations of his appalling brother. And it’s hard to dislodge an incumbent president.

I had a strange dream last night, and before I part for other pastures, can I relay it here? There is no tennis on, after all. In my dream, Federer was playing Nadal at Wimbledon, and Nadal was hitting these extraordinary high bouncing serves, so Federer had to reach right up over his left shoulder, and could just barely get a racket on it to pop it over the net for an easy kill. Nadal exuded a calm, radiant confidence – whilst Federer was plunged in gloom. First set to Nadal 6-2. My dream self apparently couldn’t handle this, and there was a murky switch to a doubles match.

George Bush was partnered by Osima Bin Laden, whilst on the other side of the net were Tony Blair and the Pope. Bin Laden and Bush had an excellent understanding, with Bin Laden in control. Bush would take a swipe at the ball and miss, but there was Bin Laden covering for him. George would give a shy smile of thanks, and Osima would say “no problem, man; peace be upon you” and then George would say “Peace be upon you” and then Bin Laden would say, “no, upon you”, and George would look puzzled, and Bin Laden would say, “oh, never mind you silly man, look there’s the bloody ball” and George would say “oh, dear,” and Bin Laden would make a Becker type dive for the ball right across a helpless George to hit a clean winner, and George would clasp his hands together sighing “my hero!.” And Bin Laden would look at him sternly and say “yes, and don’t you jolly well forget it! 6 O’Clock tonight behind the clubhouse?” And whilst George stood there with legs crossed blushing prettily, things were not looking too good on the other side of the net. Tony Blair had proved to be a bit of a flapper with the racket and the Pope was getting more and more irate. “Can’t you,” he snarled at Tony, “see that this,” and he wrenched violently at Tony’s racket, “is a racket. And this,” and he brought the ball up viciously to within an inch of Tony’s nose, “is a ball” and that – pointing to the net – “is the fucking net. And you,” the Pope shouted at the trembling Tony, “are supposed to – “. Tony had collapsed to the ground in tears by this time, and the Pope glanced at his shaking form in contempt before lifting his foot to give him a good kick in the goolies. Meanwhile, the umpire, observing the proceedings, decided it was perhaps time to get involved, and issued a warning. The Pope told him tersely what he could do with his warning. The umpire deducted a penalty point. The Pope then let fly with such a stream of invective that the attention of Osima Bin Laden was caught: “Peace be upon you, man” he called out, and the Pope growled: “I’ll give you peace, you sanctimonious little shit” and he leapt across the net, showing surprising agility for a man pushing 80. And as Bin Laden and the Pope went to it hammer and tong, Tony Blair pushed George Bush weakly in the chest, and George Bush responded by howling:”That’s not fair; I’m going to tell Osima about you; you’re gonna get it, you are”. And emboldened by this thought, he attempted in his turn to push Tony Blair in the chest, but missed and fell over. Tony Blair was so frightened by George Bush’s aggressive move, that he fell over too, sobbing violently. And in this way, lying upon the hallowed turf, George and Tony found each other, and gave each other comfort.

At this point, I woke up. I am consulting my psychiatrist. She’s called Von, and she recommends that I desist from all future posting if I wish to avoid a seizure, or worse. I always do what Von tells me to do – so, it’s good bye folks.

Fed for the A.O! (and for the French, and, and, and,………..)

December 22nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm

i’ve figured it out..

the main article/topic could be anything under the sun, but the blogs will end up being a fight amongst Federer & non Federer fans.

i just want to know if there are any Tennis fans & not just tennis player fans, around on this blog, at all ..

December 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Von and Grendel: After all that ballyhoo? I implore you, please do not leave! You’re both hilarious; reading that exchange provided much needed comedic relief after the horror of Christmas family-get-togethers!

Von, I must admit, it was nice to see someone not back down from Grendel; he tends to be a bit of a behemoth, you know, with that talent he has with the written word. But you really took him to task. Maybe you should call yourself Beowulf?

naresh – sure there are. But for some reason, Federer generates the most press, here and elsewhere, no matter what, as you correctly point out, the article/topic is. Mostly the repsonses are pro-fed, with an odd few ambivalent, and an even odder few against. The reasons, perhaps, are elementary.

In any case, here’s to a fun 2008 season.

December 29th, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Jane:

Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. I really don’t know what player is your favorite one,but,I can safely say that it is not easy trying to post on any site. You seem to recognize the fact that these are pro-Federer sites and I mentioned in one of my posts that the ratio is about 4 to 1 in favor of Federer, but, in retrospect, it’s more like 10 to 1. I felt as though I were on island adrift with 10 Federer fans. Except for an isolated few, no one seems to want to speak up. I saw that you did. I spoke up but I started an avalanche. I drew 3 angry posts. The non-Fed fans do not voice their opinions, I suppose because of the same scenario.
As you state, the reasons are elementary; that’s right Holmes, elementary my dear Watson.

To be truthful, I am somewhat between and betwixt as to what I should do. I like to post, but I am afraid of the avalanche. Probably if there is more support and I don’t have to go solo on this I’ll do some posing.

Thanks again, you made my step a little lighter. Cheerio, and all the best to you for the New Year. Only 2 more weeks to the AO.

December 30th, 2007 at 5:33 am

You guys write some seriously LONG posts! The problem with tennis in America is very simple. #1. In America there are A LOT of sports available to watch. #2. Currently there are no top 5 Americans. #3. The ATP does quite well marketing tennis to the world outside of America. The ATP doesnt quite “get it” when it comes to marketing in America.

December 30th, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Sometimes brevity is not always best when one needs to express onesself, hence, the lengthy posts, and I am about to write one at this juncture.

I agree with you that we have several sports to watch, also, currently we do not have any top 5 players. Roddick was in the top “5” for most of the year, but lost his No.5 spot a month ago to Ferrer at the Masters Cup. Surely, that should count for something. What is most confusing about the rankings, and this depends on who’s writing or talking. Some commentators refer to the top “10” as the guideline to assess a player’s achievements; others, it’s the top “5”, and then there’s the top “3.” So which is it to be: 3, 5, or 10.?

Concerning your #1 point, I used the following in a post regarding Federer not being named by S! as Sportsman of the Year.

“This Country is rift with many sports and American athletes and surely it is unfair to our athletes for awards to be given to non-Americans. We have so many athletes that are passed over, year after year, due to the fact that there aren’t enough awards to be given. It would especially be very unfair for them to be passed over in lieu of a non-American athlete, and I don’t think a European country would want to give awards to American athletes, they would give it to their own athletes. It is only fair for each country to take care of their own first.”

Regarding #3,the ATP doesn’t get many things and I use the following analogy to describe them. “The ATP is likened to an ostrich with its head in the sand.” They become discombobulated over a player making a $7 bet; (they really went for the jugular on this one) banned him from playing for 3 months, and slapped him with a $30,000.00 fine. This poor guy is not even in the 100 and probably hasn’t earned that amount of money this year. Can you think of anything more pathetic than this action by the ATP?

December 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pm

A footnote to my previous post. America does have players in the top 5, our No. 1, Doubles Team, Bob and Mike Bryan. I know that you are probably only making a reference to the singles, but doubles should be mentioned.

December 30th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

There I was, just about to go bye byes – keep saying that, don’t I – and here comes jane, as ever, stirring.

I conceded to Von some important points – exclusively about cheap (and largely wrong) psychologising on my part. She quite rightly nailed this, and I’m grateful for that in a way – it’s a terrible, prattish habit I have been prone to, and perhaps I’ll think again in future.

But on questions of fact, I stand by what I said; she was wrong on several counts, and I think I showed that, both above and in my Dec 25 post 12:42 in the “Federer lets Sampras win…” thread. If anyone is remotely interested, let them judge for themselves. I don’t believe they will regard jane’s summing up as accurate. Of course, most people won’t be interested, so sorry for being a bore. When people stir the pot (a pot which had simmered down, too) just because they can’t think of anything else to do – or perhaps because they see an opportunity for payback time – we stray into the personal, which is of no interest to tennis fans.

Since I am posting, I’d like to make a comment on this remark of jane’s: “for some reason, Federer generates the most press, here and elsewhere, no matter what, as you correctly point out, the article/topic is”. jane puts her own spin on this, and it is a familiar one. I’d like to suggest a different angle. On the message boards that I am familiar with, it is true that a majority of posters are Fed fans – the ratios vary on different sites. One of the things that must strike an objective observer is what disparate, indeed bizarre “groupings” we have here. People from very different walks of life who may have little in common with each other outside of Federer. And even here, there are such different emphases – I know for a fact some fed fans view my efforts with extreme distaste, to put it mildly, and there are some Fed fans who seem to me to come from another planet. That’s the nature of a broad “coalition” I suppose. Also notable in this strange spectrum is the wide range of abilities – all the way from tennis superstars like the great Henin, through varying levels of club players to mere armchair enthusiasts like me.

To me, this reflects something surprisingly simple and obvious – Federer is a unique tennis player. I’m not getting into the GOAT thing here. I’m not quite sure what I’m getting into, actually, but I think it’s something like this: Federer is an incredibly moving and beautiful athlete to watch. That is not unique. He is extraordinarily successful – again, not unique. But to be both: now so far as I can see, that is unique, and likely to remain so.

I think all these sites can do is to reflect reality. It is actually impressive – in terms of evidence – that so many sites tell a similar story. You may think this is unfair; news to me that life is fair. Or you may think it is boring; so be it, it is boring then. Shouting and railing about it won’t change that. Time will, though. Federer will fade away and normal service will resume. That’s probably a good thing, on the whole. But meanwhile, Fed fans are singularly fortunate – no doubt about that.

December 31st, 2007 at 6:18 am

Grendel:

I don’t think there is any need for you to stop posting or say bye, bye. We had our differences and they have been resolved, PAX. You have been encouraged to post more than once. Just simmer!

I have come to terms with the fact that I have to be careful not to step on any toes because I am a sensitive person and things seem to stay with me. I am still pondering if I should get embroiled in any posts regarding Federer, but, I think I could post on other general issues. So, I say to you, keep on posting, no one deliberately wants to hurt you. I realized at Christmas time that you are also a sensitive person,that is why I wanted to end our feud.

From what I have learnt about my sensitive side is the fact that I am the only one getting all bent out of shape while the other person/persons have forgotten the whole incident. So, for whatever, it’s worth, just simmer and everything will fall into place. Relax and stop psychoanalyzing everything, sometimes we read far too much into everything. Enough with the adrenaline pump.

December 31st, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Grendel:

Footnote to my previous post.
I would like for you to take a few minutes and contemplate about the posts you have written about Federer and the responses you have drawn, and ask yourself if it’s really worth it. It is commendable that you are a loyal fan but it should stop there. There is really no reason for you to get yourself all worked up over him and be angry over what anyone says about him. There will always be someone who will disagree with you. I can assure you that Fed is happy and he is not going to get himself into a frenzy about one of his fans. We are the ones who cause the problems for ourselves.

When we leave this world for eternity, our headstone will not have the inscription,”Here lies _____, who was Federer’s most loyal fan and died from a seizure defending him. In gist, what I am trying to say that it is all wasted emotion.

Everytime you get angry your cortisol level shoots up and it takes a long time to come down. That hormone does so much damage. PAX!

December 31st, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Grendel –

No intention to “stir” in this case – only commenting on what I had read and my delight at laughing out loud!

“just because they can’t think of anything else to do” – wrong: I was just catching up on the blog, what with the new season beginning and all, and I was drawn into the long and wild exchange between you two.

“or perhaps because they see an opportunity for payback time” – Payback? For what? It’s just a blog! I don’t feel the need to pay back. I was merely commenting on Von’s stick-to-it-ive-ness. She certainly didn’t back down or go away, and for that I complimented her.

Truth be told – I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts, even though you almost always disagree with me. I particularly thought your dream-scenerio was too funny. Politics and tennis: there really may be a link!

January 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Oh, and Happy New Year.

January 1st, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Jane:

A happy New Year to you. I hear it’s cold in Canada. I have friends and relatives there. I am looking forward to the New Year. The US is doing pretty well in the Hopman Cup. I hope that Mardy wins. He has certainly run into a few unfortunate injuries for the past 2-3 years.

I was pretty absorbed with with all of my ranting and raving concerning the Davis Cup and now the USTA won’t give Genipri a wildcard to the AO. I feelmy pressure cooker valve will blow. There are a few nostalgic matches of the AO on the Tennis Channel, and also last night I was privy to see the Davis Cup matches again, quite by accidnet because the Tennis Channel guide has been messed up all week. You mentioned that you don’t get the Tennis Channel in Canada. I am sure your cable company has a sports package that includes the TC. It was one of the best packages I had inluded in my cable sports package. The cost is about $4 per month extra. I am surprised that TC has not branched out to Canada.

Again, cheerio and a Happy New Year that’s filled with a lot of good tennis matches!

January 1st, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Kash: Please put away your prejudice against Americans. By consistently referring to Americas as stupid, dumb, unintelligent, you reveal way too much about your insecurity.

About five years ago at a business meeting in Rotterdam, one of the executives (a Brit)kept referring to Americans in just such a fashion. Then he decided to make many quips about, “Stupid, American women.” I don’t think he remembered that I was American (at least I hope he didn’t). Anyway, I’d had enough and responded, “This stupid, American woman understands exactly what’s being discussed.” His face reddened, but not enough to apologize. The apologies came from the Dutch executives.

To me, tennis is a universal sport, and I completely appreciate great talent regardless of the nationality of the athlete. Unfortunately, that’s not the norm. Most nations (if not all) laud their countrymen(women)as great athletes. A prime examples are: India who absolutely raves about Sania Mirza, a third-rate nobody; Thailand lauds Paradorn Srichaphan who has yet to reveal any great talent; same with China and Na Li et al. However, that’s their prerogative, and it’s their way of rewarding the efforts and hard work of their athletes.

So, let’s not pretend that America has cornered the market on lauding their third-rate athletes; and please refrain from sinking to the lowest depths by always referring to the American public as “stupid Americans.” Rise from the mire!

January 3rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Von: Do you live here on this blogsite? Good grief, get out there and smell the roses!

January 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm

rogers twin sister: Normally, I would not answer you. I guess this has something to do with the fact that I mentioned that it was unkind of you to speak about Serena being fat. I can tell from that remark how cold and cruel you are. As a matter of fact, if you have the guts to do it (I mean tell Serena about being fat yourself) why don’t you do it. Why do you want someone else to do your dirty work. Not only are you cruel, you are a COWARD. My blogging should not bother you. I am not taking up your space or anyone else’s. So, I can blog, and blog, a–n–d b-l-o-g to my heart’s delight. I guess that you don’t know this, but these articles and writers are rated by the number of hits they draw. Got it? So, feel free to blog. Maybe, it might unleash some of the venom you have in you and bring some more insight into your grey matter, and you could learn something from reading the blogs. I can tell that you are inhumane. Stop looking at me, I get enough time to smell the roses. Chill baby, chill.

I’ll make a deal with you stop being so venemous and I’ll stop blogging. Until then ——

January 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm

ooohhhh mum’s the word : )

January 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

It’s not about saying nothing, it’s just about being less judgmental. You did a good job with Kash. I enjoyed your post, it’s good to know that there is another person who feels the same way about the USA. Anyway, let’s have a truce, I get fired up sometimes and then I feel bad. PAX!

January 7th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

You totally missed the point of “Mum’s the word.” I figured if I met all of your personal censureship requirements, you’d actuallly keep your promise of never blogging. Oh well, another hope dashed : )

January 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Philippoussis is a complete joke. Good on Tennis Australia for finally showing some backbone and refusing him yet another wildcard that he doesn’t deserve.

January 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am