The Smackdown Partay.


Post-loss smackdown. Read at your own risk. You have been warned by Miss Crankypants.

**

You know, I really, really told myself I wouldn’t care if he lost in Paris.

The truth is – I didn’t. Come on, it’s Pareeeeee. The one Masters that means abso-fucking-lutely nothing in the broad scheme of things unless your name is Marat Safin. It’s the time of the year when most of the top pros look solely to the Year End Championships and the off season.

The rat race is – for the most part – over for the year.

“So lose!” I said to Federbear, “if you win, all the better. But honestly, I’ve got you down for a loss to Melzer and a brief rest before London.”

And whadaya know? Even despite all my insistence that I won’t let him get to me this time, Roger Federer actually found a way to CAUSE MY NOSE TO BLEED nonetheless. Bravo, you fucking piece of GOAT LARD.

610x.jpg_effected

A distinction must be drawn here – it’s not the fact that he lost. Had Gael beat him 64 64 as he did Rafa in Doha in 2009, I would’ve been mildly annoyed, the way you’re “mildly annoyed” at a swarm of flies buzzing around your room. Nothing an Aussie can’t handle.

But NO. This isn’t about the fact that he lost, it’s the way that he lost it. I say this, having only seen the third set:

ROGER FEDERER, YOU FRIGGIN PRICKTARD.

For the 4th time this year, you’ve lost a match that you had match point in. Only this time, you didn’t just have 1 match point. 2 match points. No, not even three match points.

YOU HAD FIVE, SHTINKIN’ MATCH POINTS.

You had a WHOLE MONTH OF PERFECT, ENERGIZED, POSITIVE BUILD-UP.

You won TWO MICKEY MOUSE TOURNAMENTS IN A ROW coming into this (Stockholm and Basel).

You have a record of 7 non-slam finals in a row.

You had some demon-slaying, junkyard millionaire wins to prep you.

You had an opponent who – for fuck sake – is nicknamed Monfools for a reason.

You won more points than him. But STILL managed to lose the last one.

Congratulations, you’ve outshone yourself. I hope the Mighty Babes bite your fucking ears off when they start teething. I hope Mirka squirts onion juice IN YOUR FACE.

Oh, and yes. FEDERBEAR MUST DIE.

x610.jpg_effected

I wrote this yesterday about Gael Monfils:

Watching Monfils play, you sometimes wonder why he needs all the acrobatics. Sure, it’s his style, he’s capable of it, but often, when you see acrobatics get in the way of a solid win, you just wonder why, WHY THE FUCK can’t you just calm down and grow up for a bit?!

Yes. I jinxed it. I should’ve known. How is this different to the US Open, in any way?

Who woulda thunk it that the ONE MATCH Monfils decides to “grow the fuck up” is this one?

To be completely fair, Monfils played well on most of the match points. He worked the crowd without his usual antics. He took Federer to 3 tiebreaks where the playing field is level and ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN and will, in fact, happen.

For someone who actually likes Gael Monfils, that’s a good sign. It shows that, contrary to popular belief, he is capable of winning a match with his brand of entertaining tennis, without resorting to stunts. It shows some degree of maturity I hadn’t given him credit for in the past. (Pity about the douchemountain of a coach.)

But … just … NOT AGAINST FEDERER BITCH. I don’t care. When you find a reason why I should be rational about this, just shoot me.

And by the way, can we stop this bullshit where every player who gets one up on a staggering Federer is depicted as some kind of Everest-moving champion. The future of tennis. The “favourite” for … umm …

Give credit where it’s due. But it ain’t a licence to ignore the reality of a match.

One last smackdown must be executed in the most brutish style. I apologize if … oh wait, I don’t apologize. Not at all. Mats Wilander, ladies and gents:

“Rafael Nadal is the heavy favourite for the Australian Open,” the Swedish great declared, before his match against South African Wayne Ferreira as part of the Champions Downunder Tournament in Sydney on Friday.

“Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray are in the mix as well.”

No shit, genius. But wait, I feel a passive-aggressive stab somewhere in that statement. Ahh, here we go:

“Roger is always a threat. It will just be a harder time for him to get to any finals now,” Wilander said.

“Who knows with Federer being able to win in Melbourne. I think it will be more about survival for him.”

So lemme see:

A guy wins one slam, taking down a string of top 10 players.

He makes two slam quarterfinals and a slam semi, not to mention 7 non-slam finals: IN A ROW.

He wins a complete set of Masters, ATP 500 and ATP 250.

All this with a case of lung infection earlier in the year, and months of such obvious, public struggles to regain form, lugging twin daughters around with apparent ease, while being attacked left, right and centre by media nobodies.

And yet somehow, he still manages to finish the year as the undisputed No 2.

Name ONE player not named Nadal (a man 5 years his junior), who has managed results such as this.

Point me to a player on the ATP tour who WOULDN’T trade their best year for his worst?

Find me just ONE other sucker “struggling for survival” who has claimed more top 10 scalps since July 2010. This includes Nadal.

All this and more. And somehow, Federer’s “a threat” struggling for “survival” in this sport, while the others like Djokovic and Murray party merrily “in the mix” with the “favourite”.

Well … if this is a “case of survival”, then every other player but one on the ATP World Tour would be DEAD by now, you batshit insane piece of hypocritical asshat. Go play out your pathetic midlife crisis elsewhere.

xx doots

PS. Oh Llodra. You used up the Pink Shirt magic. 😦

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

60 responses to “The Smackdown Partay.”

  1. PJ says :

    Marry me, have my babies.

    That is all.

  2. BS says :

    Didn’t watch it, followed on livescore but it’s still frustrating. When it went into the third set tiebreak I didn’t think he’d win. This year has been so frustrating. And Wilander has no business making comments like that. He does it deliberately. He’s just jealous of all that Roger has achieved 😉

    You-you-you’re not going to kill Federbear doots, are you? It’s not his fault, really! Please don’t hurt him again…

  3. writersbleedink says :

    What you said.^^ 5 match points, pure joy to watch for the last matches. It’s more of a miracle he did not win than Monfils won I think.

    And, omg, Mats Wilander? You gone mad? How about shutting up. Next time Feddy wins a Slam (soon, bitches, SOON)… IN YOUR FACE!

  4. Alex says :

    Keep laying the smackdown Doots. You’re not the only one wanting to murder a whole galaxy of Federbears right now. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  5. Jack says :

    I agree with you completely doots. I just knew deep down that when it went to a tiebreak, he was gonna lose it. I really wanted to punch someone after that!! 😀

    Just hope this doesn’t have a negative effect on him for London because I’ll be really pissed if he plays like that there.

    And I couldn’t give a shit what Wilanders says about Roger. Or any ex-player for that matter…..

  6. marcoiac says :

    Frankly, I disagree with simply counting MPs. I am still more bothered by the way he played those 2 MPs against Djoko in the USO semi than the 5 MPs he played against Lemonf today. Lemonf kept serving strong, even 2nd serves (mostly 2nd serves, actually) during those MPs. He was fearless. In the first MP, Fed played a massive FH that would have been a winner with 99.9% of other players, but not with today’s Lemonf, who sent the ball back straight to Fed’s feet. Fed had a completely open court, but had to hit awkwardly and sent it to the net (barely…) That was the best look he had on those 5 MPs. I haven’t re-watched those MPs (I am not a masochist…) but I doubt he could do much on those points. Let’s give Lemonf credit. I have never seen him so focused. The real regret is that Fed had one bad serving game in the third, couldn’t serve a first serve in, and that’s when he gave the break back. Also, he’s been a little passive. And toward the end of the match, especially in the TB, he tended to rush a little. But these are not major blunders. He clearly suffers when the other guy plays great defense. That’s why Muzza has such a h2h with him (more impressive than Rafa, because if you don’t count clay court matches, Fed is ahead of Rafa). But all in all, he didn’t play that bad mentally.
    It’s bad for his confidence though. Even though he’s probably not rattled by this loss, when you win a match this close, and you are on streak of wins, you start feeling invincible. And when clutch time comes, feeling invincible is a great asset. Unfortunately, he didn’t get that today.

    • dootsiez says :

      Fair point Marco.

      Lemme rephrase: I don’t think it’s so much about THOSE 5 mps as just the entire third set – because Monfils didn’t play a watertight third set by any means. Federer was in front, points-wise and play-wise til the tail end of the tiebreak. That was what hurt. Federer had looks throughout the third set, he didn’t convert them. He lost a match where he won more points.

      • marcoiac says :

        ah, i see. i kind of agree on that one. he also had a great look on 0-30, 5-4, and missed. could have been 0-40, 3 consecutive MPs, and actually went 15-30. yeah, now that i think about it, he should have closed the door to lemonf earlier in the set. oh well, another one of those losses that should have been a win. del potro USO final anyone?
        in tennis, you end up losing matches you should have won, and you end up winning matches you should have lost. somehow though, we only remember the ones we lost and should have won…funny how it is

        • flo says :

          But there had also been the win that should have been a loss against Del Potro at the French. Federer cam out even (or better).

    • xta says :

      huh ???
      muzza is much more impressive than rafa if you don’t count clay ??? rafa, muzza and roger all trained on clay, so why wouldn’t you count it ??? i’m lost…

      • marcoiac says :

        did not say that. i said: muzza’s H2H with fed is more impressive than rafa H2H with fed. why? coz in rafa H2H with fed there are 12 matches on clay court, which happens to be rafa’s favorite surface (most titles won on it) and fed’s least favorite surface (least titles won on it). if you also consider that only abt 30% of the season is on clay and that abt 60% of matches between rafa and fed have been played on clay, you must realize that the H2H between rafa and fed is abnormally skewed toward clay court matches, statistically speaking. this does not happen in muzza-fed H2H, and yet muzza’s ahead of fed. that’s why muzza’s H2H with fed is more impressive than rafa H2H with fed.
        hope this helps

        • dootsiez says :

          Like-wise, Murray has lost to Fed on the two slam meetings without even winning a set. On the other hand, Fed has lost to Rafa on several slam meetings now.

          I don’t have an opinion either way – both these two H2H are controversial because Federer leads in neither, and they are often used by the media to “discredit him” and discount his achievements. I loathe tennis media. Just a few days ago, the whole bunch of them were drooling over Federer.

          Meh.

        • xta says :

          i’m with you, doots…h2h-s can be anything you want them to be…(especially if you can “discount” matches)…
          according to marco’s logic, i guess rafa’s h2h with murray must be impressive…not much clay…then we get the “old lady who swallowed the fly” circle: murray is impressive over roger, rafa is impressive over murray, but roger is impressive over rafa (?)
          well, two out of three ain’t bad: LOVE those fedal boys !!!

        • braggaditis says :

          marcoiac,
          Agree re the H2H situation.

          Dootsiez,
          Great piece. You put together all my thoughts re this match of Fed, but in a better way. Yeah, there were 2 players playing the game and all that. But it was more of Fed’s loss than a Monfils wins even if Gael played a steadier match than we’re used to watching from him. To start with, though Monf played strong in teh 1st set, Fed could have still closed it in the tiebreak if he had not chosen a couple of brain-cramp, ego-driven decisions in the tiebreak. More importantly the third set was Fed’s to lose. Monf was serving under 40% in the 3rd set, didn’t he? He would’ve paid for it heavily against ANY other top 4 player. Lesser said about Fed’s passivity (I’m talking about his overall play rather than an isolated brave FH or a BH) during big points, like a 0-30 even, on Monf’s serve, the better. Looking at Fed’s level in the last 3 months I thought we were past these kind of sloppy (by choice, not pushed into doing it) days. Oh well…

        • marcoiac says :

          tennis is a match-up game. everybody who played the game knows. some guys hit the ball in a way that makes you comfortable, that gets the best out of you. some others make you play like crap. people should simply consider that. a H2H is only indicative of how comfortable a player is with another player. but when it comes to a career, you need to look at titles, where H2H sort of average out, not singling out H2H. fed is 20-2 with roddick, but roddick isn’t that abysmally worse than fed. it’s just that roddick’s ball extracts the best out of fed. and fed’s game extracts the best out of muzza. i don’t think rafa plays better than his usual game when he plays fed, but fed definitely plays less well than usual when he plays rafa. citing H2H to evaluate who’s best in history is a logical mistake. but then again, i doubt those sport journos ever studied logic…

        • marcoiac says :

          @xta: it’s not about discounting, but rather understanding. numbers can’t be taken at face value. let me give you a dramatic example: discoveries in medicine have established an optimal timetable for vaccination. unfortunately, the timing of these vaccinations coincide with the onset of symptoms of autism. children often show the first symptoms of autism in coincidence with vaccinations. and some people have obviously made the connection that vaccines give you autism. but this connection is only apparent, and serious scrutiny has ruled out any link between vaccines and autism. sadly, this is more difficult to understand than just seeing the temporal connection between vaccination and onset of autism. the net result is that in the upper strata of western societies vaccinations are decreasing. and this could lead to catastrophic consequences. vaccination is the biggest achievement in medicine, has eradicated terrible diseases, and if this phenomenon of not vaccinating your child because of irrational fear of autism spread, those diseases may come back. so, the bottom line is, numbers don’t mean much if you don’t interpret them in a context. on the other hand, when it comes to deciding who’s the GOAT in tennis, given that there is a multitude of factors that affect outcomes that change over time, you must use occam’s razor and just take one or two or three parameters that remained stable across the decades. otherwise you never reach a conclusion. if you want to include in the race pre-open era players (like rod laver), i would say only major titles can possibly count. (even that is debatable, i know, but at some point we got to reach a conclusion of some sort)
          and this post was waaaaaay too long
          sorry about that

        • dootsiez says :

          well said xta. You coming down under this year?

        • dootsiez says :

          Marco –
          “citing H2H to evaluate who’s best in history is a logical mistake. but then again, i doubt those sport journos ever studied logic…”

          Yes to that. A better way would be to calculate winning % across all the tournaments both players played in to determine who had greater consistency. At least this should be done for the top players. It’ll give you a greater representation of where each player sits in terms of the overall tour.

          Brag –

          I’m with you in the frustrations. In times of discomfort, the first thing we do revert back to as human beings is our ‘default’ position. Federer has gotten away with playing passively on key points for so long that he reverts back to it when he’s uncomfortable. It’s almost like he assumes one of them will fall his way, it’s strange because it’s totally contrary to his usual style of play.

          IT SHITS ME SO MUCH ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG!!!!

        • xta says :

          hey, doots…
          i WANT to come to the AO, and i MUST go to monte carlo…so i’m working all angles to see if i can get my miles to get me to both…i’ve got to get super savers to both, and the odds are not with me…but i do believe that where there’s a will there’s a way and i’m not giving up…
          marco…
          i always got your point…
          and as the aunt of autistic siblings i was, um, moved by your example…but your point is ancient, and best cited in the modern world in the west wing: “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”…

  7. PSP says :

    *Sigh*
    Many Match points wasted…..
    Hope this is just a blip & he would play well in London. BTW, I think some ex-players are just plain jealous!!!

  8. pban says :

    Roger, me and the art of xen. He played pretty poor tennis and it was just his serve which stood fast. The FH was awful, the 2 he missed in the 3rd TB were just way off court and if you miss them you deserve to lose. What really hurts are those MPs.

  9. A_Gallivant says :

    I woke up and watched both semis and I was as flat as a pancake for Fed’s. I know everyone is freaking out about the 5 MPs but I’m freaking out about that very casual drop shot Fed attempted in the first set tiebreak that would have given him a set point. I knew then that we were in for a rollercoaster ride. Fed was very low energy throughout the match and I frankly was surprised it went to three.

    Doots I completely feel ya on the Monfils is the next thing since he beat Fed. Monfils is always a different animal at home than he is anywhere else. He was riding the wave of support from the crowd and really stayed within himself. Still, I’m a fan of his, so Fed’s loss is only slightly tempered by the fact that I’m sort of proud of Monfils for really hanging in there and getting the win. However, I would have preferred the alternate universe where Llodra and Fed play the final.

    I’m not even going to talk about Mat ’cause he’s right up there with PMAC, JMAC, and BG who’ve been calling the end of Fed for years now.

  10. flo says :

    As soon as Fed lost to Djoko I knew I needed to avoid tennis readings for a while. Putting my toe back in I’ve seen what I expected to see: conventional wisdom from the likes of Navratilova is Nadal is the dominant player separated from the pack (agreed obviously), that he’ll have five years of dominance where if he dodges injuries he’ll get to 19-20 slams easily (five years is a long time in tennis, experts; I think three year outlooks are as far as I’d be comfortable with), Nadal can get better (I think this is pretty much his peak and it’s exemplary form, but it’s possible I guess), Federer is not going to get better (I think it’s a nice way of saying he’s in decline).

    ON the last point, his game is not really going to evolve too much the only thing he can control is to keep his form up and be more consistently in form. But then the time element and fatherhood and all that stuff I don’t know if he can do it. If there’s one thing I want him to do it’s to get his serve to the consistency of a Roddick instead having it fluctuate so much. He’s not getting faster, or a lethal backhand. Yet if Roddick can keep above 60%, why can’t Federer?

    • dootsiez says :

      If Rodge loses form and consistency, let’s not point to “fatherhood” as a cause. Seeing the emotional way he celebrated Basel last week, I’m not sure if the twins are a distraction or a motivation for him. Prob a bit of both. Likewise Kimmy Clijsters.

      Agree re Navratilova and serve consistency though. I think he’s actually been better along the baseline this year than last year, but nonetheless, you make like SO MUCH easier on yourself when the serve is rock solid dependable. Wimbledon 09 anyone? Not the shiniest match by his standards, but it’s hard not to win when you’re dishing up 50 aces.

  11. Katarina_YYZ says :

    Not to be the eternal optimist here, but in order to waste match points… you have to actually have match points. That means you’re pretty good. I’m sure that Roger has wasted more MPs than Berdych or Verdasco, but I’m sure glad his win/loss record doesn’t look like theirs. A quick count since Wimbledon not including Bercy: Roger is 27 wins, 3 losses. Berdych is 7 wins, 11 losses, verdasco 9 wins, 11 losses. When you get beat in the first round 6-2, 6-3 by qualifiers, you don’t end up with a lot of unconverted MPs 😀 ! Great!

    yep, the way he lost is tough on a fan. I hope he doesn’t dwell on it as much as we do. Good luck in London, Rogi!

  12. steve says :

    Federer’s results since Wimbledon:

    Toronto: F
    Cincinnati: W
    USO: SF
    Stockholm: W
    Shanghai: F
    Basel: W
    Paris: SF

    Not bad at all for a man who’s supposed to be in terminal decline.

    Watching him lose to Monfils sucked for all of five minutes afterwards. Then I was over it. After all, the longer he keeps playing, the more he’s going to lose. It’s not like the list of people whom he has lost to can get any shorter as time goes on. I just find I can no longer beat myself up too much about it. (And I say this as someone who, during the match, was swearing constantly at my computer and my intermittent Internet feed, which demonically chose the moment of one of those missed match points to freeze on me).

    Missing five MPs hurts, and one can speculate that maybe he’s not fully comfortable with his new tactics yet in crunch situations, or maybe he just wanted to go home and goof around with the twins, or maybe he played too much tennis these past couple months, or maybe he had his mind on London and the WTF, and so interminably on; one could drive oneself crazy with this kind of speculation.

    In the larger scheme of things I don’t think this loss presages anything dramatic. He’s survived far worse losses than this. If there is any athlete who embodies the resilience of the human spirit, it’s Roger Federer.

    My feeling is that Federer will capture the French again next year. At AO I don’t think he will be quite ready. In that case I don’t think he will be in the final. Like I said, he can afford to miss a few Grand Slam finals at this point. If his game is not 100%, it might be better in the long run to let Nadal have the spotlight and the burden of expectations all to himself.

    I have never had much use for Wilander, and I have even less use for him now. How the hell can he–or anyone–predict how Federer’s career will evolve? The man is exploring completely uncharted territory. There are no models and no precedents. He is on a journey where even the greatest of the all-time greats who preceded him cannot give him advice. So the ex-champs can yammer on about whatever they please, but they don’t know what the friznuck they’re talking about.

    Federer will shatter all preconceived notions of what is possible in tennis and redefine what it means to be a great tennis player. Of this I am certain.

    • dootsiez says :

      For this comment, you can have my first born Steve.

      In the “larger scheme of things”, like you said, I completely agree with you. It doesn’t take anything away from the frustration and the waiting and the annoyance and the zombie-eyed screams on a Sunday morning. That’s the fan experience.

      The grand scheme of things is for a rainy afternoon 10 years down the track, when we can all chat about this like rational human beings. 😦

      (I hope you are right about the French Open. Like you, I don’t think Federer is quite done with proving himself on clay yet)

      BUT I hope you’re wrong about the AO. I’m *this* close to getting tickets to the final.

      • xta says :

        doots —
        i would NEVER discourage you from getting tickets, but– just FYI — i do want you to know that i was totally successful (as in 100%) in getting good seats, day of, at last year’s AO…seems the mr. and ms. bigs of the world do not always use their wonderful tickets, so the morning of i was always able to get good seats…(like a few rows up from uncle toni at the quarterfinal)…having said that, you can also buy a ticket now and exchange it on the day of for a better seat…i went to the ticket booth by where the trains let you off, and if they didn’t have a good seat first thing in the morning i let them know i’d wait…and i just stepped out of the line and stood by the fence and read a book…and when a good seat came available they would signal me and i’d go to the front…easy peasy…

        (i’m having better luck with airline scenarios for melbourne than for monte carlo…we’ll see !!!)

        • dootsiez says :

          hehehe xta, I know there are usually a fair few tickets available on the day for the eager, but this is the final, so I didn’t want to risk it. Booked tickets to the final today, and hoping to swap for other seats and get some more tickets for earlier rounds when the time comes.

          DO make it down under. Rafa’s chances look great. AND we totally need some Fedal-friendly drinks!

        • xta says :

          as a relatively new united airlines “premier” customer i am going to call today to see what strings (if any) that allows me to pull…
          what’s your feeling as to when rafa and roger will play ??? i’m thinking the same as last year, rafa odd and roger even (not reading anything into that)…your thoughts ???
          i guessed right last year and was able to see the quarterfinal (excuse my tiny tears) and flew the next day so i saw the semis and finals at home…i’m tempted to come during the middle this year and stay for the final, but it’s always the risk arriving late that you miss so much…there’s so much action in the early days…i wouldn’t have missed hit for haiti for anything !!!
          and i’m definitely up for the fedal toasts !!!

        • dootsiez says :

          xta: Aus Open does the same thing as Wimbledon: the defending champ always kicks off on Day 1. That’s why Rafa played first this year. And that’s why Roger played odd days in 2009 (because he was in Djoko’s half, and Djoko was the defending champ).

          So your best bet for seeing Rafa would be on Day 2-4-6 etc. 😀

        • xta says :

          okey-dokey…
          i may have some bad info, because i thought fed won 2007, but played even days in 2008…but i totally defer to you, and expect that roger will play opening night !!!
          thanks — that helps !!!

        • dootsiez says :

          ^ You’re right xta.

          Federer was supposed to play on Day 1 in 08, but he pulled out of Kooyong last minute, citing a stomach flu (which turned out later to be mono). So he especially requested that the organisers put him second because he needed more rest.

        • xta says :

          thanks o font o’wisdom !!!
          makes perfect sense…

  13. pban says :

    my sentiments exactly steve, how can we judge someone whose achievements we cannot match. Fed is in a place all by himself, I had 0 expectations in Paris so I shouldn’t crib ,its just that this was simply the year of losing matches after having MPs. If a man is pronunced in decline after 65 titles and 16 slams then I will take his decline over any of the next in line after Rafa according to batty Matty.And will Rafa Nadal please stop giving pressers where he says the surface( re WTF) is the most difficult for him to win,I am sick of his ???humility!!!

  14. Maria says :

    I had no idea about this Matts WIllander’s interview, but you responded in pure awesome way! The guy is unbearable…

    • dootsiez says :

      “I had no idea about this Matts WIllander’s interview …”

      Hehehe Maria. This just shows who really gives a fuck about Willy Wanker these days.

      • ClayBuster says :

        “Willy Wanker” – I just spit out my coffee all over my keyboard.
        Well said lady!

        (agree on ALL points as a matter of facts, but just felt I had to comment on that one. Great stuff!)

  15. sue.w says :

    Oh Doots!! Poor Federbear *cry* Please dont hurt him!!!
    As for the match well I’m in the group who are pleased as punch he got THIS far!! Many were whining that he wouldnt even get past the 1st round so to then be in a state cos he lost in the semi’s is a bit stupid!! He just wasnt ON in the match and the *clown* was red-lining…end of!! Yes it was crap to see him have MP’s AGAIN and lose them but thats sport!! I have to cut him some slack here mainly cos I adore the man and cant be angry with him for more than a nanosecond !! I can be disappointed FOR him but not IN him!! Course thats me and nothing I can do about my *obsession*. WTF will be a different story!! Onwards Champ!!!
    Wilander…Pffffffffft. Just STFU man!! Never speaks a word of sense anyways, good mate for Reed (though he’s been very quiet recently, maybe cos his *girlfriend* hasnt been doing much apart from going to weddings in skirts!! )
    Going to do my usual ‘not read a thing sport related’ until WTF starts and then I’ll choose carefully what my eyes come across, and *sigh* back to watching Roger with the mute button at the ready!! Damnation!!

    • pban says :

      Heard Reed on the commentary team for the Asian Games opening ceremony , but I don’t think we can be lucky for very long as WTF is on its way and with Toothface around can Reed be far off.

  16. sita says :

    FEDERBEAR MUST DIE…No two ways about it Doots !

    I am not supposed to be mad at him because he wasn’t really expected to get this far in Paris and I wouldn’t have cared much for a first round exit.Honest. But this ???
    That effing third set just killed me.Why couldn’t he just lose 76,76 which is what I was prepared for after the first set ? Why did he have to go 3-0 and 4-1 up ? Why could he not seize that opportunity to get the second break and shut the door firmly on Monfils ? Why could he not hold his serve in that one fateful game ? Just why ??? And the 5 MPs , let’s not even get there.

    I hate you Roger Federer for reducing me to a cross between a piece of wreck and a zombie over a weekend.
    I hate myself for the inadvertent jinxing I did yesterday and saying the things I did about Monfils.
    I hate you Doots for this post and that picture which makes me want to strangle and hug him all at the same time.
    That’s just about as cheerful as I can get right now 😦

  17. astraldrops says :

    I am to totally zen about this loss. I don’t fucking know why.

    I SHOULDN’T BE (because I was bloody screaming at my computer screen during the whole third set) .

  18. roadrunnerz says :

    I FLOVE your smackdown of the Wilanders comments, Doots. FLOVE.

    What is UP with that dude anyway? Bitter much? Jealous that Fed’s got more Wilanders than he ever had?

    Can he crawl into hole already? Yeesh.

    As for not-so-belle Paree, my expectations for the tourney were low to start, so I can’t say I’m disappointed with a semi, BUT the close ones still HURT! I cannot lie. :-/

    Really, Federpoop, FIVE match points? What’s next, trying to lose a match after having twenty? Note to Fed: There are some records, for the sake of Doots’ Federbear, that you do NOT want to have. Trust me.

  19. jfK says :

    Great post doots. I don’t even wanna know what you did to your Federbear.

    I knew when the match opened with Fed holding a 9 minute service game we’d be in for another WTF match. He also had some really negative body language. Well, Now it’s over and let’s hope he has the blowing match points act out of the way to conquer London.

    As for Wilander. Whatever. He’s always hating on Roger. I already know that everyone is predicting a “Rafa Slam” down under. I can already see TV Coverage/ articles are going to be unbearable. I don’t want to worry about that right now. Let’s hope Roger can prove everyone wrong and end this year on a high note!

  20. Alex says :

    Maybe I’m mistaken, but didn’t all the matches he lost this year with match points were receiving? I can’t recall the last time Ferd lost a match when he had MP on his serve.

    • marcoiac says :

      that’s why federbear is more or less intact. the day fed loses a match when he has MP on his serve, doots will pulverize federbear 🙂

      • jandemom says :

        Then let’s not mention such a thing, not even in passing! I shudder when I think about what that poor federbear has endured…

        Please don’t waste any match points in London, Rog. Pretty please. Good luck & come on!

    • TGIF says :

      He had MP on his serve against Berdych, in the TB.

      I’m pretty zen. Fed has a talent for losing matches this way; I’d still rather that than going out 6-4 6-4 to Le Monf. That wouldn’t feel Fed. 5 MP’s, a break up in the decider and still no win – that’s has Feddy written all over it.

      Obviously never good for the confidence to lose a match, but it was no big surprise he lost in Paris, so better to Monfils than Sod.

      • dootsiez says :

        “He had MP on his serve against Berdych, in the TB.”

        I was just about to say that. AND I WILL REMEMBER THAT MATCHPOINT 4EVAZZZZ.

        Yeah Fed, you better be scared.

  21. Lapinroyal says :

    I’ve been warned, but I read on… so I pipi in my pant… ROFL
    I should have done this earlier… this is better than the bottle wine on Saturday and the voodoo doll…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: