anotherlongshot (anotherlongshot) wrote,

I hate trying to title my entries.

I'm going to watch Roger's 2006 Australian Open victory after I post this, and I kind of want to sleep by 2 a.m. so I'm going to make this quick.</p>



I was a bit afraid he'd meet Nalby in the final tomorrow and possibly win, which would mean he'd maybe overtake Roger for #2, or at least close in the gap between them, BUT HE LOST HAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't know if he gained any points but whatever, HE LOST HE LOST HE LOST.

Anyway, if he'd won today and met Nalby tomorrow, I'm sure my beloved David Nalbandian could've beat him! Like totally. And speaking of my Tinky, NO ONE TOLD ME SUPERSPORTS IS BROADCASTING THE TOURNAMENT! I caught the last game of his match against poor Richard Gasquet, who saved three match points, just to miss a backhand on game point, double fault on deuce to give Nalby another match point, and finally lost when he hit a shot way wide. Oh well, whatever, NALBY'S IN!

I don't think I can watch it tomorrow though, 'cause there's lunch at Holland V. Oh well.

2. Shit I want to watch Kooyong! Roger's playing Stan Wawrinka in the final!!!!! Wawrinka was his doubles partner at Beijing last year and is his Davis Cup doubles partner. ARGH I WANT TO WATCH! Must find a way to download the match. Or buy it. I've been dying to watch them play each other since, like, forever, omg.

3. AUSTRALIAN OPEN DRAW IS FANTASTIC. Murray and Nadal are likely to face each other in the semi-final, which means Roger won't meet either until the final. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! CAN'T WAIT TO WATCH MURRAY AND NADAL KILL EACH OTHER!

But then again, I might get so fucking bored with their boring defensive baseline games that I might not even bother watching.

On third thought, according to Time magazine Nadal's coach made him change his forehand follow-through. No more over-the-head whip, but the conventional across-the-body follow through. HAHA WHAT THE FUCK WHO DOES THAT. Why would he want to reduce Nadal's heavy topspin? Why would he want to change Nadal's playing style? Roger would never play with a double-handed backhand even if his single-handed one lacks the power of the former. It's just counter-intuitive to change your style after you've been playing a certain way since, like, forever.

In any case, though, watching Nadal adjust his forehand should be interesting to watch. I wonder if he can win anymore without his (in?)famous extreme topspin. Hahaha. We'll see.

Anyway, assuming no upsets, Roger's likely to face either Djokovic or Roddick in the semi, which is bloody great news for me. Roddick's career was destroyed by Roger, and Djokovic only won the semi-final with Roger in Australia last year because he played MonoFed. Roger beat Djoker in style at last year's US Open semi, and Djoker's simply not much of a threat at all.

Not to mention: Djokovic abandoned Wilson and changed to Head, which was his explanation for his first-round loss in Brisbane (I think?). Is that also why he lost to Jarkko Nieminen (wow, I never cease to amaze myself when I spell these weird names right) today? Because...HAHAHAHA WHO CHANGES A WINNING FORMULA SERIOUSLY. If anyone should be making changes to his game, you'd think it should be Roger. But he's still refusing to change his racquet, refusing to get a coach, refusing to change his backhand. Why should he anyway? He's the GOAT, after all.


I love Human Rights in Asia. I love love love it. It helps tremendously that, despite my fundamental difference with her, I share TLA's general view towards human rights. She talks very fast and I hardly have time to write things down but she makes the class so interesting, and I absolutely love it.

Yesterday she went through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and actually told us who - i.e. which country - was responsible for which article. Nadia and I were quite amazed at how she knows these things.

I also love that it's a take-home exam so that I don't have to do research. YES.


Hmm, I thought the little run-in at the first-floor stairwell after Human Rights yesterday was worth mentioning. After trying to think of how to spin it and failing quite tragically for the past five minutes, maybe it's not worth mentioning at all.

Whatever. I'm more interested in watching Roger.




This article, which I followed from Tris' blog, is so full of blatant stupidity that I have no choice but to postpone the Federer Fest and comment on it.

Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng narrowed it to either of two scenarios: one, he is in Singapore and hidden by sympathisers unknown to the authorities, or, two, he has fled the country.

I love how the reporter wrote 'narrowed down', as if there's a universe of wide-ranging possibilities. Seriously. Seriously.

He added: 'I can't say whether he's in Indonesia, the Philippines or whatever. The moment you leave Singapore, you can find a place to go.'

I can't even. What's the best response to this? Oh I know - DUH?

Citing last year's incident in which Singaporeans criticised the ICA for allowing through a person carrying the wrong passport, he noted that there seemed to be 'unrealistic and unreasonable expectations dominating the public discussion, that there cannot be any lapses whatsoever'.

I'm sorry, this is about national security, right? We're still talking about the escape of a suspected terrorist? Isn't it the most basic expectation that "there cannot be any lapses whatsoever"? If you don't even demand that standard for yourself, you're implicitly saying that something short of the best, the most vigilant, defence would suffice. And um, that doesn't really inspire confidence in me.

Why is this person still in office? I wish we'd adopt Britain's old convention whereby a minister would automatically resign when his staffers fuck up, even when he had nothing to do with the fuck up. It's only in this country that a minister who fucked up in a major way and has yet to rectify that screw up still has the cheek to remain in office. What the fuck, seriously. My dad wagered, days after Selamat ran away, that he'd resign - to which I automatically said, "Yeah right."

I know my country way too well. I don't know if I should be disturbed or not.


ETA #2:


Tags: australian open, human rights, law school, roger federer, singapore, tennis

  • I HATE Injuries

    Today, I tried to walk to a nearby cafe for brunch as I have three 40% discount vouchers expiring sometime next week. Since the food is tasty, I had…

  • (no subject)

    My writing; so lazy! If there were to be one particular cause for the failure that is my life, it would, without a shadow of a doubt, be my laziness;…

  • Great Tennis Victory

    Tennis Elijah is very enthusiastic about tennis. Like I told him today, I think the reason I have been so tired in the mornings and having major…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.