|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rohit Brijnath
Senior Correspondent
The weeping Federer
February 02, 2009 Monday, 05:48 PM
Rohit Brijnath thinks it's just fine for losers to cry.
In Melbourne ROGER Federer and Rafael Nadal tire each other out - and they tire us too. When their match came to a close, everyone was emotionally exhausted. My father asked me this morning if I cried while watching Federer weeping; I, in turn, asked my mother if she did. Who asks these questions after a sports event?
Taking it like a man. I like sport like this - big-hitting, big-running, big-hearted sport. I like it when we are reminded, because we do forget, that these impossible-shot-hitting, insane-tension-managing automatons are in fact men. Unlike us, yet just like us. I like it when men let go and reveal themselves occasionally, so we know what's going on inside. When he was inducted into the tennis hall of fame, Pete Sampras, usually dry-eyed (though he wept in Australia once), could barely complete his speech and broke down so often. In Malaysia, years later, he told me he didn't like it when people said he didn't have emotions. Oh no, he had them, he said, but to play his best tennis he just couldn't afford to show them. I liked Federer's tears because kids should know it's okay to cry. Some fathers tell sons, big boys don't cry. Yes they do. I liked the tears because they were the tears of a loser. Winners weep, but losers are not supposed to. Not in public, you whinger, it's not done. But who made these rules anyway? Federer had cried before, in Australia, in Wimbledon, but this was different. Always his tears had come with victory, born of relief that the match was over, expectations fulfilled, journey done. But this was pain, this was emotion flooding his insides, with nowhere for him to go but stand in that crowded stadium, till he could keep it in no longer. People knew he was playing a younger man, now a better man, playing for his career, for pride, playing to become part of history before time claimed him, and it's why the audience reached out to him. My mother isn't keen on sport, but Federer she watches. Because he's like an old school gent. Nadal's a new school gent. He spoke generously of Federer, as he always does, saying: "Sorry, was tough moment for Rog today. I know how tough must be there in important situation from him. But, you know, no, he's a great champion. He's the best. And he's, for sure, very important person for our sport, no?" I can't remember a rivalry in an individual sport as competitive and classy. But no doubt someone will write in and remind me. Tags: sports, tennis
Your comments are welcome. The following rules apply: |
|
|
Other blogs by Rohit Brijnath
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
|
|
Best viewed at 1152x864 resolution with IE 6.0 or
FireFox 2.0 and above Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.
Regn No. 198402868E | Privacy Statement
| Terms & Conditions
|
There's much more written about the guy who cried than the guy who won. It is not in the winning but in the losing that you see one's character. In previous final matches where Federer had won, he was more concerned about basking in his own victory in both words and actions than the other player who stood with head down at the podium.
Yes, he is in pain. How can he not be after losing to a guy whom he not too long ago dismissed as 'only good in clay court'? How could he not be after saying that he only lost 'one point' in Wimbledon? How could he not be when he is so used to winning and not losing after being in #1 position for so long? How could he not be after he is defeated by the same guy on 3 surfaces in less than a year and after failing to win the coveted French year after year? How could he not be when he felt he had the best chance in AO2009 as the other guy would be worn out after 5h14m? How could he not be when he attributed his loss in AO2008 to 'illness' and lost to Djokovic and lost again in 2009? How can he not be when his last coach Tony Roche (whom he did not renew contract for failing help him win the French), Rod Laver and the other tennis greats were watching him?
To say that tennis means so much to him makes a mockery of other players.
To sob uncontrollably when one has lost is pathetic. How many players have Federer defeated before and how many have sobbed?
It's Federer's ego that has been hurt. Period. And even when he lost, he had to take the other guy's moment of glory. Ego. Period.
True greats lose graciously and accept there is a better player. True greats celebrate the winning of another player. True greats are humble.
Roger cried because he could not overcome his mindset (fear of losing to Nadal again) when playing Nadal especially in big stage. He just didn't believe himself he could still pull the trigger with Nadal where most of us, fans, believe otherwise. I really feel bad about his head-to-heads with Nadal and Murray. I think he fails in his mindsetting that haunts him whenever he plays these two guys.
There are some who say that crying is inappropriate as it is being weak. But the point is that choosing not to cry as a policy does not change who you are. It just changes how you are perceived, not the person inside.
Further, I am no psychologist but I feel bottling up emotion can be detrimental to one's general happiness and well being. It is better to let out.
Last but not the least, I have seen that there are people who do not cry out of insensitivity and not due to strength. This is a subtle but interesting point. Some people are not affected by anything, not even a positive happening so much so that these people would not put in enough effort to succeed. I think failure must make you feel bad since that will badly make you want to succeed.
I was hoping Nadal would win...and he did. About 2years the ATP desperately needed players to challenge Fed. As much as we admire his skill and shot selection, as true sports audience we want to see a fight. Nadal, Novak and now Andy, they all brought that to tennis. Tennis is now more gripping to watch. Fed has done wonders, now the younger generation is coming up. As a true champion, how can he not know this? correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Fed defeated Pete Sampras at Wimbledon in the second round when Fed was just like what 20 years old? so why is he weeping? By doing so he has taken another player's glory. imagine how many time Andy Roddick must have cried each time Fed beat him...18 times. Fed will surpass Pete record or atleast equal it...but in the meantime enjoy the rivalry the best tennis can offer.
All these comparison between the 2 on who is the best is secondary. Federer is no doubt the best player of his time, on and off the court. Nadal will only have time to prove that he is equal or even better. It is a joy to watch both men play always, irregardless who wins. When you have comments like what Jenny posted, it makes people take sides. She may no doubt be a Nadal fan but it doesn't mean putting down his opponents. Personally, there is nothing wrong with Federer weeping after a defeat. The tears were not because he was a sore loser, it was one of frustration, helplessness and defeat. Who can blame him when we are after all....human?
1 2 3 4 >