10 seconds ago, I was tearing out my hair over the impossibly hard Human Rights assignment. But now, after reading this wonderful piece of news, I'm totally grinning from ear to ear and feeling genuinely happy.
Federer Gets A Coach
Globe and Mail Update
March 4, 2009 at 7:02 PM EST
The often discussed union of Roger Federer and well-established coach Darren Cahill appears to be coming to fruition.
Globesports.com has learned that Federer is currently in Dubai training with Cahill. It is apparently a trial arrangement with nothing set in terms of a signed agreement.
Federer, who parted ways with Peter Lundgren of Sweden as coach in July, 2003, and then Tony Roche of Australia in May, 2007, has gone for long periods during his most successful years without a coach. More than half his 13 Grand Slam titles were won when he did not have a coach.
The last two years, the Swiss Davis Cup captain, Severin Duthi, has usually travelled with Federer, but never been officially listed as his coach.
Cahill, 43, is an Australian who reached a career-high ranking of No. 22 in singles as a player. He was a very good friend of fellow-Australian Peter Carter, who was killed in a vehicle accident in South Africa in 2002. Carter worked as a coach in Switzerland and was Federer's mentor and most important tennis influence during his formative teenage years.
Cahill coached Aussie compatriot Lleyton Hewitt and then spent the last four and a half years of Andre Agassi's career as coach of the great American. Agassi retired in 2006 and he and Cahill remain close friends. Cahill and his family currently live in Agassi's hometown of Las Vegas.
Okay, so it's not 100% set in stone, but oh my god, you have no idea what a huge relief it is to me to read that Roger's finally, FINALLY shaken off his stubbornness and attempting to get some help. I guess that Australian Open loss finally woke him up; after all, losing five times in a row to the same guy in Grand Slam finals must've sucked, especially if the fifth time could have been his 14th Grand Slam, if only.
I wonder what happens to Fernando Verdasco though, whom Cahill was - is? - coaching. Then again, if I'm a top professional tennis coach, I'd definitely want to coach Roger Federer!
I'm so excited! I hope this arrangement eventually works out. I won't pretend to know anything about Dan Cahill apart from what the article said so I'll just leave it at that and keep my fingers and toes crossed and hope that this is the first positive step towards Roger turning is 2009 season around!
(Not that it started off badly or anything, at least not objectively. But because he's the Federer, not winning the first Slam of the year = crappy start to the season. Hahaha. I love him.)
Okay, gonna resume the hair-pulling.
Seriously, this is the worst assignment ever. It's due tomorrow at 4 but I intend to submit it way before that so that I can play tennis at 3, and yet I only started writing at 1 a.m. today because I just don't know how the hell to organise my stupid essay. I still don't. I'm writing blind and hoping that some structure would magically come to me as I write blindly. I'm supposed to analyse some KL Declaration on Human Rights (an inherent contradiction) and I am absolute rubbish with legislations and treaties and conventions. I just DON'T KNOW HOW TO ORGANISE MY CRITIQUE. Shit.
Never mind. I'll do this. Somehow. As if I even have a choice, right?
ETA at 5.42 p.m.:
LOL SO HARD AT THIS:
That's one hell of a huge-ass racquet, Andy!
More pictures of my #2, my American boyfriend, from the Davis Cup press conference:
Okay, they're not the best pictures, but they're something! I'm actually a teeny weeny bit torn between the USA and Switzerland. If Roger was playing, I'd be 110% behind Switzerland for sure...but he's not playing. And my #2 is. But Switzerland is still my #1's country and therefore, by default, I want Switzerland to win.
But I wouldn't mind terribly if Andy does well in the tie, too. But it'd be at the expense of Roger's Davis Cup dreams. Well, that is, assuming he even plays at all this year, in the highly unlikely event that Switzerland pulls off an upset in Birmingham this weekend. And honestly, I don't think I'd care too much if Switzerland miraculously won the Davis Cup - the actual CUP - without Roger.
It's not the countries that I support, but the players. I supported Argentina in last year's Davis Cup final over Spain because of David Nalbandian and that was it. I'm finding it hard to also support Switzerland when Roger isn't even playing.
Oh well, who cares. It's not like the tie is broadcasted anyway. Instead of SUI vs USA, I'll be treated to ESP vs SRB. HOW EXCITING. NOT. It's like choosing the lesser of two evils: Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic. How 'bout option 3: I DON'T FUCKING CARE.
Lastly, just to explain the Andy Roddick fuss:
HOW CUTE IS THAT. SERIOUSLY. HE EVEN HAD THE SAME SMILE. I LOVE MY A-ROD.
This whole entry explains why I'm only a third into the assignment when I could probably finish it way earlier. I can't focus, I have zero attention span, and I've written 1400 words when I haven't the slightest idea what the hell I'm writing. How absolutely brilliant.
Also, the reason Andy has displaced Nalby as my #2 even though I objectively prefer Nalby's tennis is because Andy is hilarious and his personality is accessible. I actually know something about who Andy Roddick is, and I have to care personally about a player in order to really like him. So no, I guess I can't like something for its own sake, not when that something intrinsically doesn't have a personal aspect to it. Sports, that is. Without my emotional investment in Roger, tennis would just be a sport I watch for a while until I tire of it. I might still keep up with the tournaments and the winners and the players but I wouldn't follow it so religiously and obsessively.
Similarly, as much as I love Nalby's tennis, I don't know anything about him apart from the fact that he's an Argentine and does racing on the side. Andy, on the other hand, I know a lot more about, and things like his consistency and his wicked sense of humour and even his arrogance help me to like him as a person - and liking him as a person automatically ranks him higher than another player whose tennis I actually prefer, but whom I know next to nothing about.
For some reason, the human element simply has to be there. I have to care about something beyond a player's win-loss record, his technical expertise, his ranking. I have to care about his struggles, his determination, the kind of person that he is, or makes himself out to be, off-court. Otherwise, I just can't sustain my interest. I don't know why exactly, but that's just the way it is.