I have nothing to say work-wise, apart from how I was reading a new file today and was ready to pull my hair out because I didn't understand why the defendants thought they had a basis on which to make out their defence. Maybe I missed something. But I read the file the whole day - there is no way I could've missed something. Just - no way. If it were up to me, I'd tell them to settle and stop wasting time and money. If only everything were up to me, right? I know.
I miss school. Now I'm actually motivated to do that paper I've put off for two years; something to look forward to when PLC starts, I suppose. Because right now? Too damn tired every day to do anything when I get home but stone in front of my laptop. How tragic.
Anyway, I'd like to say that haters who are banging on about how Roger's French Open win doesn't prove anything because he didn't beat Nadal in the final should just shut up and burn to death in a fire. Is it Roger's fault, or problem, that Nadal couldn't reach the final? How is his win less worthy than it'd be if he'd beaten Nadal, he who didn't make it past the fourth round, than him actually beating Soderling, the guy who took out Nadal? People are just looking for excuses to hate on him. And I bet a lot of them are Samprastards.
Roger reached his 20th consecutive GS semi-final this French Open. Four GS a year makes it five years in a row he's not lost before the SF of a Grand Slam. The only time he's lost was in the Australian Open last year, when it eventually was revealed that he had mononucleosis. He's made 15 of the last 16 Grand Slam finals, and the only 5 finals he's lost to have been to the same person: Nadal.
If that's not consistency, I don't know what is. And it's consistency at the highest level. It's the kind of consistency that Nadal can't even display, for various reasons, especially related to his knees (about which I am truly sympathetic). But if the current crop of players are anything to go by, Roger's records, his achievements, will stay intact for a very long time - because no one plays with the effortless grace that he does (which also helps him save energy), and no one else plays consistently well at a high level the way he does.
So: Is Roger Federer the greatest of all time? Hell yes he is.
That's all for my soap box sermon for the day. Going to shower now.