Apologies for the lack of updates lately: I do so want to partay like it’s 1999 and have Roger Federer punch me in the ovaries with his deliciousness, but your Webmistress has been soundly defeated by a bout of flu and Tony Abbott-induced electoral rage, and is currently confined to bed with Federbear for cuddles.
I do however bring y’all Swiss doughnuts with white candy crosses to celebrate Squishy’s most recent win, HURRAH!
So here’s the deal:
Was it the cleanest of matches? Was it the best I’ve seen him play – as well as I know he can play? Of course not. In fact, in both the final and the semifinal against Baghdatis, Roger Federer returned badly, let his opponents off on their second serves, hit some shots akin to approach shots that were either some kind of failed “experimentation” or just … really, bad approach shots.
But that’s not the point.
The point is: he won, and he didn’t need his best tennis to win. We couldn’t say that in Indian Wells or Miami, where every match seemed to require a whole lotta digging deep into the depth of his soul. We couldn’t say that during the clay season, when every break point lasted for an eternity and the mofo had no mojo. And Wimbledon? Don’t get me started.
Looking back on the US Open series, a final and a title gives Roger Federer the best combined result in the top 4, not bad for an old geezer who has lost motivation, with his career “in crisis” and his brain turned into baby food.
The retirement and walk-over he got at the start of the week most likely helped, but the wins he scored, over Berdych and Djokovic, Baghdatis, Davydenko and Fish were morale boosting. They say revenge is a dish best served cold, I don’t care how it’s served, as long as Roger Federer serves it.
More doughnuts anyone?