As a general rule, I am in a bad mood after a Roger Federer loss. I'm not sure if it's better or worse depending on who he loses to, or if it's simply bad, period; but as a general rule, Roger losing a match = me bitching about it here immediately after the loss = me putting the world on notice that today, the day after, the day after the day after, are not good days for me. And because I'm someone who tends to dwell on the negative things and let them overwhelm me, I don't have the energy or the patience or the mood to care about many other things. Is this a character flaw, my tendency to become so emotionally involved with someone that I don't even know to such an extent? Yes, perhaps, it is. Do I care? No, sorry, I don't.
I have two things to say in this entry. First, I'm going to talk about Roger's loss and Roger in general. Next, and finally, I'm going to talk about Facebook and the assumptions that people make based on Facebook, assumptions which make me laugh on a good day, and piss the living fuck out of me on a bad day like today. Exciting, no? Totally.
1. Roger is the best, and there is no 'but'.
Maybe I should be worried that I couldn't properly sleep this afternoon when I attempted to nap after sleeping a grand total of two hours, then going out in the morning to send my grandparents off (they flew back home today), then sitting for 15 minutes in Kenny Roger's watching my family have lunch. Objectively and physically, I was pretty much exhausted. At the airport when we sat down in Pacific Coffee Company, I was falling asleep at the table. I was falling asleep in the car, and I fell asleep in the car.
But when I tried sleeping when I got home, I kept dreaming about the match. The dreams played out in such a way that it was as if I was watching the match as it happened, except in the moments of the actual match that occurred this morning at 4 when Roger had chances but missed, or when he was slowly falling behind, in my dream those moments happened in real time, as if the result hadn't already been entered into the books, and every time the Dreaming Me thought, "Oh my god, he could claw back into the match and win this!" I'd suddenly jolt awake and realise - it's over. It's been over for hours already. No amount of dreaming will right the ship.
I was upset, but I didn't think I'd be this upset. It doesn't help that I keep reading fucking nonsensical posts on the poor man's official forum from his so-called fans about how this loss totally heralds the demise of Roger Federer, of his career, of his endeavour to break the Sampras Record, and how this match totally signals that he doesn't have a killer instinct, he doesn't have the will to win, "he is never going to beat Nadal or Murray".
Fuck that shit. Fuck it all to hell. It's not enough that he's got the sports media writing him off; now his "fans" have decided to join the bandwagon. Sometimes I wonder why these people think it appropriate to share their half-baked, paranoid views on his official forum - a fansite, not an objective tennis discussion forum. Is it not reasonable to expect there to be people who'd be offended, who wouldn't appreciate their "analysis"? Of course, freedom of speech mandates that people should be allowed to say whatever they want; but freedom of speech is also, sadly, abused by people without a brain, who end up saying utterly stupid things that just upset even more people. If I have to read another post about how Roger needs a coach (someone actually suggested Darren Cahill - shows how much that person has been keeping up with Roger's professional life) and how TMF is dead and how citing his back as a reason for his loss is making excuses and how he's never going to win another tournament, let alone a grand slam? I will fucking kill someone.
I don't deny that I'm also disappointed for him and upset that he's registered his fourth straight loss to Andy Murray. Nothing upsets me more than him losing to Murray, not even him losing to Nadal. I hate Andy Murray as a tennis player precisely because of his winning streak against Roger, and I hate it even more that he's been allowed to get away with his cheap game plan the past four official matches. I absolutely hate the fact that Roger hasn't found an answer to the Backhand Problem, and to this extent I'm a little bit disappointed in him that it's been a few months since he first lost to Murray in Madrid, and the same thing is still happening. Maybe this is how his long-time fans feel about his response to Nadal, i.e. it doesn't really exist. But Murray is my Nadal because I've seen Roger lose to him so many times, and ALWAYS in the same manner, and trust me, I'm definitely upset and disappointed and I can't begin to describe how hard I wish it'd gone down differently.
Does this mean I start writing him off, though? Does this mean that I hope for a miracle to help him win the next time they play each other? It's funny how I'm holding on tightly and setting myself up for this bitter disappointment and heartbreak every time they draw each other in a semi-final, considering what a thoroughly negative person I am. But it's a testament to Roger, not to me, that I keep doing this, over and over, each time hoping tabula rasa for a victory even though I rationally know I shouldn't. It's a testament to his beautiful, beautiful tennis, his integrity, his respect for the rules of his sport, his humanity, his character, that I care so much about him and want him to succeed and believe in him no matter what. Maybe I'm just a blind fangirl trying to justify her blatant idolatry; but I've always had solid reasons for my fangirlism. Roger Federer is no different.
I was watching the tie-break between Andy Roddick and Nadal earlier on. After six points they switch sides, and players typically stop by for a quick sip of water at their chairs as they change sides. There is a time limit for this but I don't know how long it is, but even without knowing how long it is exactly, I've watched enough tie-breaks to know that it's not very long at all, and that the amount of time Nadal took drinking water and placing his bottles in the exact position that he has to hit completely overshot the time limit. I've never sat through a tie-break in which one player took so damn long during changeover. Andy was already waiting at his end, his hands on his hips, and if he'd mouthed off to Nadal, I wouldn't have been surprised one bit.
The commentator said that Nadal should be careful; he'd already received a warning for some other violation earlier on, and that if he received another one, he might be penalised. But of course, nothing happened in the end. They went on playing and Nadal won the tie-break and the match.
I might be alone here, but one of the many things I admire and love about Roger is his integrity, his honour. He wins honourably, doesn't resort to cheap, dirty time-delaying tactics like feigning injury and calling for the trainer to disrupt his opponents' momentum (Nadal, for instance, does this on a regular basis). He serves one point, then steps up immediately after that to serve the next, and doesn't do the idiotic ball-bouncing time-delaying trick that Djokovic employs, because technically, he IS serving; he's just bouncing the ball more times than another player. The only way he disrupts his opponent's momentum is by upping the level of his play. And despite many other players abusing the rules and using such dirty tricks, he'd never do that, because he's too good for that. He's above it, and he knows it, and I'd rather he lost with his integrity intact than to win beating his opponents at their own dirty games.
I might be alone here again, but I think there is nothing more important in a cut-throat and competitive world than your integrity. Take a simple take-home exam in law school where the rule is that you're not allowed to discuss it with anyone until the paper is over. Am I oblivious to the fact that there are people who disregard this rule and discuss anyway? Of course not. Do I engage in such behaviour? Of course not. What is the point of doing well in an exam if the effort is not yours, if you did well by bending the rules? What is the worth of an A if it is tainted by dishonesty and dishonourable behaviour? This also extends to the rather prevalent practice of preparing essays with each other and taking in the same essays to the exam hall and copying off from them. While I don't take issue with preparing your own essays, I balk at preparing esasys with your friends and "sharing the work". Of course, you can point at my C+ and whatnot and laugh and say that I might have done better if I'd done the same thing; but I think I'd much rather get a C+ on my own terms, with my integrity intact (though not so much my industry which doesn't exist), than to copy someone else's work and get an A for it.
Once again, maybe it's just me. I wouldn't be surprised if it's just me plus maybe one or two other persons. Maybe I'm just blindly idealistic and naive, thinking I can get by in "the real world" sticking obstinately to my principles and ideals. But if there's one thing I've been, it's that I'm stubborn and full of myself and I always think/know I'm right. My principles are more important to me than any cheap success that resorting to Nadal-esque time-delaying tactics can get me, and therefore, I am the moth that's attracted to Roger Federer's light.
You see, there's a rational, logical basis for all the things that I do. Worshipping Roger? It's because he is someone worth admiring, worth worshipping; his success is earned on his own terms, by his own hard work, by his integrity. You know, I think the most important thing to me is probably integrity. A person can be the smartest, most brilliant, most attractive person in the world, but without integrity, he's nothing. At least, to me, he's nothing. This is why I cannot respect Nadal and perhaps Murray if I'm ever convinced that he resorts to gamesmanship too (I'm not, not yet at least) - once your integrity is shot, your wins become dubious, and it doesn't matter how many Slams you win, how long you stay #1, how many times you've beaten Roger Federer; you're just...sad. And even kind of cheap.
It's for all these reasons and everything that he is and how his tennis is inspiring and inspirational and just a thing of art and beauty - all these things taken together makes his defeats so hard to take. Murray is a hard worker and a great defender, but he's not a better player. Maybe he was the better player in this match (not that hard to accomplish; anyone can play better than Roger judging by the crap tennis he played for most of the match), but he's not a better player than Roger. No one is - not even Nadal. Especially not Nadal. I haven't been watching tennis long enough to be an expert, but to my untrained and learning eye, Nadal doesn't have the natural talent that the likes of Roger, Novak Djokovic (to a lesser extent), Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Gael Monfils, Marat Safin, and David Nalbandian have. Nadal works hard, he trains hard, he conditions himself well; but he's not a natural tennis player. Roger is. He's got the most beautiful game, and the utmost respect for his sport. That is why I hate watching him lose and why I am seriously affected whenever he loses.
So yeah. The general rule is, when Roger loses a match, leave me alone. Thanks.
2. People. Seriously. Need. To. Chill.
I'm just going to say this once: Facebook is Facebook. Real life is real life. What happens on Facebok doesn't always translate to real life; therefore, whatever happens on Facebook shouldn't be taken to mean more than it does. Whatever you think is happening? It's not. Get over it. Find something else to tear apart, to nitpick over. Go watch some tennis, get some sun, go for a swim. Just get off your computer and stop making a complete Mount Fucking Everest out of a tiny fucking lump of soil.
The overreaction. Seriously. If I weren't in such a bad mood, I might find it funny. I'd attempt to justify my actions, but there's nothing to jusify in the first place. And like I've said before, I don't give the slightest flying fuck what people have to say as long as my conscience is clear.
Here's a suggestion: the next time someone asks about Facebook, point them to this entry. It'd save you guys the trouble of answering stupid questions, and it'd also help me give my response to their stupid questions. Namely? People need to chill. After that, they need to get a life.
And really - if something is so blatantly public, and if it is law school, chances are, that's all there is.
I was going to add something snarky to the above but on second thought, forget it. I'm done and I'm not going to dignify this subject any further by talking about it, and I'd appreciate it if no one brings it up again. It's fucking stupid, it's fucking childish, and people, once again, need to simply chill.
And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, I think you're better off for it. Trust me on this - don't even bother.