So ok, things have not been working out for me – in terms of picking the winners, that is. Maybe, I’ve been stuck in 2006 or something and so I still want Roger, Kim and, maybe, Sharapova to win. Or, maybe I’ve been placing bets, using my heart and not my head – or maybe, not really.
As for today’s men’s finals, I was slightly apathetic. If I wasn’t doing anything at home, I would see it but if I had something better to do then I’m ok not to, because, well, I am, just slightly bitter.
But if I had to chose who I wanted to win, who would it be? (I know, the final’s already over… but this is a theoretical discussion, one that happened in my head hours before the actual finals began. So just humor me.)
Strategic vs. Subjective
picture taken from the official Australian Open website
Subjectively, I would go for Nadal, that is – he seems like a nice guy, has/had this on-going friendship with Roger going for him. They've been buddies (aside from the recent brouhaha about that talk of striking and Roger isn’t into it but Rafa is – objectively though I think Roger has a point that going on strike isn’t good for anyone – not the players, not the organizers, the sponsors, the sport, or the fans – just look at what happened to the NBA. But hey, other people have other opinions about that).
So, back to Rafa: he’s just a good champion. I just like him better, so I would rather he wins.
Strategically, of course, I would have to go for Djokovic, just because if Nadal’s rank goes higher up then it would be harder for Roger to catch up to rank #2.
As for Andy Murray, subjectively he’s rank #4 to me (He’s just too sulky) and well, strategically, the more he loses, the less chances he gets to bring Roger down a notch. So Andy, you do not register in my radar at all in terms of who I’d want to win those trophies.
And, my choice for my subjective #1, is well, obviously Roger Federer (well, duh).
Roger’s Form
picture taken from the official Australian Open website
Back to explaining why I’m not so delusional after all and why I am not particularly stuck in the year 2006.
The thing is Roger was playing really well, especially in that match vs. Del Potro. He has improved a lot since 2008 - back then it felt at times like he’s no longer into it. He had those bought of walkabouts when whoever that was came to inhabited his body and made him dazed or something.
In 2011 at the French Open semifinals, he did so well against Djokovic.
In the Del Potro match (AU Open 2012), he was just so back in the zone. It was the Federer that makes you gawk in awe with every passing shot he makes.
Seriously, Roger didn’t even play that bad against Nadal in the semis, it wasn’t his best but he wasn’t playing too bad either (not 2008 level bad). It’s just that on the day, Nadal was just too good, he was better than his usual good. He could inhumanly get to a lot of Roger’s shots that would have normally been winners against other players. Then there were so many of those lucky breaks (net cords, line shots, etc.) that went Nadal’s way.
All I’m saying is, Roger is still in good form – way way way in good form. And, at that age where everyone already sees him as a veteran, everyone would have to say that he’s in tremendously great form. How would Nadal or Djokovic be at 30, really? When all this running has already caused some injuries for Nadal these past few years and when only 1 year at #1 has already caused Djokovic some injuries too.
I really hope Roger wins another big one soon because, objectively, I really think he still can and subjectively, I really really just want him to :)
No comments:
Post a Comment