Here was a match with so much resting on it's outcome , one that would answer many pressing questions being posed about both players - so very nearly ruined by the actions of an over exuberant 'fan'.
Djoko came back the more bolstered of the two, a man on a mission and took that second set; and Roger did what many feared he might, if we got into a tight third set. Not at all what I had hoped for, but certainly in the script. More on Roger later.
I still stand by everything I said in that post, but may unwittingly have given the impression that I think there's something wrong with the idea of a hero, or the intense adoration that often accompanies it.
I don't; and I think the extra layer of irrational admiration makes following the sport a richer, more fulfilling experience. Far more entertaining and beyond anything that might be achieved through dry appreciation of technical excellence or physical prowess.
I love my tennis of course. But I'm also a person, and persons tend to be drawn to personalities. I've even, on occasion, found myself drawn to personalities with little or no tennis talent at all. In contrast, though I sometimes admire talent devoid of personality, I've never truly been drawn to it.
Personalities matter - whatever Nikolay's PR team may say about it; and there can be no heroes without personality. Or something that very closely resembles it. Heroes seem to go a step further though, by the way in which they transcend the futility, cynicism and grunge found in 21st century living.
But I also believe most reasonable people would take exception with the 'cult of personality', the 'hero-worship', that sees it's adherents wilfully insulate themselves against any form of criticism or suggestion that their chosen idol might not be the demigod they've built up for themselves. Or, as it did during this weekend's semi final, causes them to disregard basic standards of civility and propriety.
That's the moment when loyalty turns ugly - the kind of 'fan' I think, Roger Federer can do without.
In any event, I tend to prefer my heroes to be more flawed. More Humphrey Bogart than Errol Flynn. The so called Anti-Heroes. Sensitive, misunderstood folk with lofty aims often only held back by an awareness of their vulnerability that bears down on them with the weight of a thousand Max 200Gs. More Marat than Roger?
I'm still undecided on that last one. Roger's dominance. Bit of a conundrum see, what with the ease with which it was accomplished. A debate in my mind is still raging as to whether anything that suave, admirable as it is, truly merits the title heroic. On balance, I sort of think it does - 13 Slam titles -- weak era or not -- are most definitely not to be sniffed at. But I'd be more convinced if more of those Slam Finals featured Rafa, and not quite so many played against Roddick. Heroism in my mind seems inextricably linked with struggle, and the last time I think I remember Federer struggling against Roddick, he was still sporting a pony tail.
Whatever the case may be, Roger's present predicament appears to have coughed up an unexpected opportunity to remove any remaining trace of doubt. It seems a little cruel, but at the same time strangely poetic that the efforts he expends towards gaining his last two Slams -- and his unquestioned place in history -- should be more taxing than anything he did to get this far. No wait a minute, I think the word I'd use is heroic...
Posts
