I, the girl with a savings account that has been specifically named "Wimbledon fund," did not even bother watching the final this year.
Oh yes, I've heard from everyone that it was the greatest match ever played, Roddick played his heart out, and Federer finally, after all that, beat Pete Sampras' record with 15 Grand Slam wins. The trouble is, I knew all that before I even sat down to watch Roddick slip past Andy Murray on Friday. Federer was a lock, no matter how wicked Roddick's serve, because who -- besides Rafael Nadal -- can possibly beat Roger at a Grand Slam?
I'm just bored with it all. To me, tennis was at its most sublime about 10 years ago, when you were never quite sure who would come out on top: Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter (whose autographed picture is a highlight in my dining room) or even an upstart such as Roddick or James Blake.
And by the way, Blakey, I love you, but stop losing in the first round and breaking my heart, OK?
Do we even know if this Swiss phenom is human? How can we be sure that the traditionally neutral Switzerland hasn't been pumping its research and development dollars into the perfect bionic tennis player, while the rest of the world has gotten bogged down in nuclear proliferation concerns?
So here's my plea: Won't some hot new tennis star break through at the U.S. Open in August and show this guy some real competition? (Sorry, Nadal, but you don't count. You're almost as perfect and boring as Mr. Grand Slam himself.)
Let us know your most likely candidate (or why I should leave Federer alone) and you could win L. Jon Wertheim's Strokes of Genius: Federer, Nadal, and the Greatest Match Ever Played, which chronicles last year's monster of a Wimbeldon final. And please excuse Mr. Wertheim's title; how was he to know that Federer's win this year would be even more phenomenal?