June 2nd, 2010
I had the Clintons plus the points.
Also, I take it all back: Federer is clearly still an untouchable giant at the height of his powers.
PS: Hatred for The Swiss? Commenter A.K. doesn’t quite know what he’s talking about . . .
-
Your hatred for Federer is hilarious. He loses to Soderling – who was runner up at the French last year – and now its time to mock Federer? Shall we turn back the clock to the last time you talked Federer down? You know, when you said Federer "would be lucky to tie Sampras's 14 slam wins" and "It's hard to imagine how he could win three more [Slams]"? That was four Slam titles ago.
-
Ha – just saw the update. You sure that the guy who wrote that piece for TWS is the same guy who has been denigrating Federer for the past 2 years? The guy who wrote posts like this, this, and this (comments)? Each increasingly convinced that Federer is all washed up?OK, OK, I accept that "hatred" is, um, not quite the right term. And I acknowledge that you wrote after the US Open last year that "if Federer keeps rolling like this, I'll take it all back"… But a setback in the French to last year's runner up (even after steamrollering through the Aussie) and you are back to denigrating him. It's classic Philadelphia-style front-runner behavior. (And I say that in as nice a way that a guy from North Jersey can say it about someone from South Jersey.)
TubbyLover69 June 3, 2010 at 12:47 pm
You only took the Clintons, with points (!), because you naively believed theirs is a relationship built on trust and affection. We Brits, however, recognize a royal coupling when we see it. Theirs is a union based upon mutual advantage, and both parties know it. If marital love should enter the equation, very well. But that's hardly the point, is it?