Two days at Wimbledon: Day Two
An Aussie fanatic getting set up for camping
Wednesday, 6.30 am. No such luck today. Andy Murray, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are playing and the quest for tickets for Centre Court has already started the day before. I’m not mentioning Novak Djokovic here, although he was playing too (against the new Aussie hot shot Bernard Tomic as a matter of fact) because the Serb is far from reaching Roger and Rafa’s popularity here (yet). His winning the trophy this year might help though. So back to queuing. The Aussie fanatics supporting Tomic are here as every other day. They’re interviewed by a TV station and asked to demonstrate their fervor: “Let’s go Bernie, let’s go !” We start the process as number 2093 today, which means that getting tickets for one of the show courts would be nothing less than a miracle. As expected, we “only” get tickets for the grounds today but that’s good too, for two reasons: first, it saves money because Centre Court tickets were £90 on day 9 whereas ground tickets were only £17 and second, we’re in for the whole Wimbledon experience: a sunny day after rain and the rest of the grounds after the heart of the Temple.
Roger Federer warming up
Navratilova-Novotna vs Sukova-Temesvari
It all starts with Federer’s warm up on court 14 under Severin Lüthi’s supervision. The place is packed and I’m not the only one taking pictures ! It is then time to move to court 18, the now historical site where Isner and Mahut battled for three days and 11 hours last year, because Martina Navratilova is about to come out to play her invitation’s doubles. Again, the place is cramped. We’re notified that if we go to the bathroom (sorry, to the loo) after the fifteen minutes allowed before the match starts, our seat won’t be saved for us. People are queuing outside in case someone was to abandon their spot. Our neighbor, a pure Londoner judging by his accent and his heavy cider drinking, is what we might call the life and soul of the party, the pre-match entertainment in a way. He’s not willing to attract the attention of the weird guy with a pink hat in the front rows but if the steward could somehow make sure the blonde girl next to him was aware the bloke (let’s be English for once) was single and interested, it’d be awesome. Speaking of single, whenever someone new tries and find a spot in the stands, the steward directs him somewhere, mentioning that a double or a single (seat) is free in such and such row. Inevitably, when the patient steward tells someone that “a short-legged single” is free in our row, our new buddy retorts “hey ! I don’t have short legs !” I think you got the picture by now. Navratilova and Novotna, in the meantime, beat Sukova and Temesvari in straight sets in a match played on a slow rhythm but still quite impressive for 40 and 50-year-olds. It’s also worth mentioning that “Tiger Tim” (Tim Henman for those unfamiliar with the heroic subject of Her Majesty who tried, tried and tried again to win Wimbledon, stopped four times in the semis by Sampras twice, Ivanisevic and Hewitt) makes an appearance on the press terrace above court 18 at some point, duly noted by an observant spectator (“Come on Tim !”) and then obviously by the entire audience.
The Henman Hill
Time has come to move to the Henman Hill (or Murray Mound since Andy is playing next) to watch Federer vs Tsonga on the giant screen while sipping Pimm’s and eating a toffee ice cream. There are worse venues for a tennis match. Unfortunately, Federer seems to be in a pretty bad day, especially as far as his attitude is concerned. The match starts as it should, Federer building a two-set lead pretty quickly, but then completely losing his grip over the match. More than Tsonga’s performance (as much as the French newspapers tried to emphasize this aspect the next day), Federer looks like he isn’t hungry, he doesn’t want this victory that much, whereas it is obvious that the powerful Frenchman is not here to be taught a lesson by the master and has overcome any complex of inferiority toward the best player of all times. The eternal question is in the air: is Federer too old, is he done ? This question has been asked (too) often since 2008 and the journalists have always been wrong to write off the Swiss maestro so far. But still, this time, maybe for the first time, the attitude is clearly wrong more than the performance and this apparent lack of hunger is worrying indeed. The post-match interview doesn’t reassure anybody since Federer doesn’t seem to take what is supposed to be an excruciatingly painful loss in his own private backyard at Wimbledon too seriously. The crowd is quite taken aback by this massive upset but has no time to mourn since Murray is up next on Centre Court.
Lindstedt & Tecau aka "the spies"
The umpire couldn't remain serious for long with Goran by his side...
Off we go to court 12, where Ivanisevic is scheduled to continue his match started the day before. But first, Arnaud Clément and Lukas Dlouhy are facing Robert Lindstedt and Horia Tecau in a tight fifth set. The Swedish-Romanian pair finally wins 12-10 and will go on to the final, lost to the Bryan twins. Their communication system is the highlight of their game, as you can see on the picture above. Finally, Ivanisevic and his three buddies are back on court and even though court 12 doesn’t seem to be as good a scene as Centre Court to Goran’s taste, this is still great fun to watch. Johnson and Palmer eventually prevail 7-6 7-5. After a little autograph session, it’s time to leave the grounds. This is how Wimbledon, day two, ends and believe me, it was every bit as good as day one ! If I may add a little lesson taught by these two days, although doubles implies less physical effort than singles, this form of the game should not be dismissed as unimportant and TV channels should follow BBC’s lead and broadcast more of them, at least during the main events like the Grand Slams, it’s really fun to watch ! And it’s a part without which the greatest game there is would not be whole.
Two days at Wimbledon: Day One
The road leading to the Championships
Wimbledon. Where the tennis tradition has been religiously kept for so many years. It’s rather easy to watch it on television every year for a fortnight, as they say there, but actually going there to see the players and feel the extraordinary atmosphere surrounding the tournament with your own eyes without the mediation of a TV screen is something completely different. The experience and dream of a lifetime for every tennis nuts in the world. This place lives and breathes tennis for two weeks. The heart of the sport just beats harder here.
The queue
Wimbledon has a rather peculiar way of giving out tickets for the matches. Indeed, one can either enter the “ballot” to get a chance of being among the chosen ones, in other words the ticket holders for the next tournament, or one can simply show up on any given day of the tournament (rather early in the morning if possible) and take part in the famous queue in Wimbledon Park, hopefully leading them to one of the precious tickets for the show courts (Centre Court, Court 1 and 2) or at least to ground tickets, giving access to all the courts except the three previously mentioned and the rest of the grounds including the Henman Hill (or Murray Mound when the Scot is playing) and its giant screen behind Court number 1. The last solution is to show up as of 5 pm and try and grab one of the tickets left by people leaving the grounds for a reduced price.
In the grounds
So here we are on the second Tuesday of the tournament, queuing (I’d use the more American standing in line here, but I don’t think it fits this very British way of waiting) at 6.30 am in Wimbledon Park. The first thing striking the eye is how organized everything is and how calm (how British !) everybody remains all the way through the process taking you to the grounds in around 4 hours, very much part of the show. The most intense tennis fans have been camping for days already so that’s why our queue ticket specifies that we’re already number 919 in the increasingly huge line. That’s where luck comes into play since there are only 500 tickets for the show courts given away every day therefore meaning we were virtually off the main attractions already. However, apparently many people in front of us either couldn’t afford the (huge) prices of the tickets or preferred smaller courts. Anyway, Centre Court tickets are still available when the honorary stewards (this job apparently requires to wear a blazer and to have been there already in 1877) handing the corresponding wristbands get to us. Nobody would spit on such an opportunity, even for £78 !
Petra Kvitova
Samantha Stosur & Sabine Lisicki
Victoria Azarenka
The actual show starts when we finally get to the grounds around 10 (they open at 10.30, which leaves you some time to wander around the shops and various food joints, how convenient !). The courts 4 to 19 are already quite busy. Petra Kvitova is hitting with her coach, Sabine Lisicki and Samantha Stosur are warming up for their doubles match scheduled later in the day (and that they will actually play the day after due to the weather), Victoria Azarenka is wearing out her male sparring partner behind a fence, watched by a growing crowd quite unsure of who they’re looking at (“-Who’s this ? -Victoria Azarenka. -Victoria who ?”) and the surprise quarter-finalist Tamira Paszek is just finishing with practice, walks away from the court and passes me, completely unnoticed by the rest of the crowd. The juniors starting their tournament get the same treatment, even though some of them might return as top seeds in the adult championships in a few years, who knows ? Just a few names picked up in passing: Jiri Vesely, Luke Saville, Liam Broady and of course Alexios Halebian. In addition, some of the invitation’s doubles players are already out on the courts.
Rain...
... and the roof closing !
Sabine Lisicki
Marion Bartoli
Maria Sharapova
Dominika Cibulkova
But not for long. Indeed, Wimbledon wouldn’t be Wimbledon without some rain. And when I say some rain that means a huge thunderstorm that will make poor Lisicki jump very high at some point. That’s when our luck increases drastically since the Centre Court is the only court providing a roof. Ironically, rain starts at 1 pm sharp, the exact time when the matches are scheduled to start on the show courts. After a display of the very famous and fast covering of the court, the roof can be put in action. It needs approximately 20 minutes to close. Sabine Lisicki and Marion Bartoli can then make their entrance. The first detail attracting the modest club tennis player’s eye is the intensity put in every shot. Women’s tennis is known for its lack of diversity and this is true, no question. You’ll never see Sharapova serve and volley or Bartoli chip and charge and the only drop shots will come from Lisicki’s racket (11 winning drop shots against Bartoli). However, the shots they do master – basically their serve and ground strokes – will be smacked with such violence on every single occurrence that it is rather stunning. TV really doesn’t do justice to the actual speed of the game, as everyone who has ever been in a tennis stadium knows. The grunting is quite the same as on TV though, and with ladies like Sharapova or Azarenka (her grunts follow the ball until the opponent hits it as pressure increases), we’re not disappointed.
Radwanska-Hantuchova vs Mirza-Vesnina
Goran Ivanisevic
After seeing the refreshing and charming Lisicki exhaust energy-wasting Bartoli (the French was constantly jumping all over the place like a boxer on steroids) in a tight three-setter, Sharapova slaughter poor – but still very pretty – Cibulkova in straight sets and the victory of Sania Mirza and Elena Vesnina over Agnieszka Radwanska and Daniela Hantuchova (the last mentioned was not normally on schedule), the crowd shouts its happiness when past champions Goran Ivanisevic and Richard Krajicek are announced next on Centre Court, to face ex-doubles number ones Donald Johnson and Jared Palmer, instead of Jamie Murray playing his mixed doubles as mentioned in the program. Goran is completely living up to his entertaining character, filming his own entrance on the court, asking a ball boy to take a picture of him and Krajicek, answering the crowd (“-Goran, we love you !” -Thank you !”) and firing 4 aces in his first service game when, unfortunately, it starts raining again (the roof has been – quite stupidly – reopened in the meantime). As it is getting darker and darker and hope for rain to stop is growing thinner and thinner, it is then decided that the last female quarter final (Kvitova had had time to get rid of Pironkova on Court 1) will be played on Centre Court since play has been stopped everywhere else. Exit Ivanisevic and Krajicek (they will come back the next day, 3-2 in the first set, to be continued…) and Azarenka and Paszek are up next. The audience is rather disappointed not to see Ivanisevic come back but still delighted to be offered one extra match, especially people that just came in after 5 pm. It’s immediately clear that Azarenka is quite annoyed to have to play at such a time and that she intends to groan her way to the semis as fast as she can. In spite of a fierce resistance of young and small Paszek, her Belarussian opponent wraps up a neat 6-3 6-1 victory.
Victroria Azarenka
Tamira Paszek
Wimbledon, day one, was a complete success. The queue experience is to be renewed the next day, stay tuned.
Another unusual loss in a five-setter for Hewitt
Lleyton Hewitt is leaving the court but he'll be back
Lleyton Hewitt is part of yesterday’s play of the day on the Wimbledon website for his extraordinary jumping backhand passing shot giving him the decisive break of Soderling’s serve to lead two sets to love one game later. That’s all he got. Three sets later, Robin Soderling was falling on his knees after Hewitt’s last forehand in the net, celebrating coming back from two sets down for the first time in his career. This gesture used to be a habit for the Australian. He used to be almost unbeatable in five-setters, with a career record of 30 victories and 17 defeats (the last victory against Denis Istomin in the second round of the French Open in 2010. Hewitt has lost his last three five-setters since the US Open 2010) including coming back from two sets down six times (last time against Radek Stepanek in the fourth round of Wimbledon in 2009). Unfortunately, he’s been losing these tight matches he used to specialize in far more often than not in the past few years and his recent injuries didn’t help. That’s how one goes from being number one in the world to being number 130 this week and expecting to drop near 200 after Wimbledon. Things change. However, on the bright side, Hewitt said he wasn’t thinking of retiring any time soon and if he’s able to pull off a few more matches at this level in the tournaments remaining this year, he should be able to secure a more decent ranking by December. Provided that his body leaves him alone for a while so that he can get more competition under his belt (his record is 7-7 this year so far). I’ll be back next week, live from SW19 for more insight into the greatest tournament in the world.
Picture: http://images.smh.com.au/2011/06/24/2451650/ipad-art-wide-Lleyton-Hewitt-420×0.jpg
“I think Barack Obama is a joke”
Karen E. Miller was born in Houston, raised and homeschooled in Trinity, Texas and is currently a senior at Sam Houston State University, studying communication and sociology. She is a Tea Party (populist, conservative and libertarian movement that started off in 2009 in the United States) activist.
How come you got involved with the Tea Party ?
Well, I agree with their platform. The original Boston Tea Party was formed because the colonies were taxed without political representation in England, there was no representative as a middle man between armies and the Parliament in England and it seems like the same thing is happening now, in a way. Politicians are proposing legislation without public support so we feel like, in a way, we’re being taxed or having legislation pressed upon us without our representation because our representatives are not representing us, which is their job. I think this movement is getting people active in politics in such a way that it hasn’t been in a long time, even people my age who haven’t been as involved in politics are becoming involved because they feel very strongly about the things that the Tea Party is presenting. So I think that at the very least it’s getting people knowledgeable about what their government is doing and it’s encouraging them to get involved. So I think that even if you don’t agree with the Tea Party’s beliefs, you can at least appreciate what it’s doing for the common man in regard to politics.
And concretely, how did you become an activist ?
Well, there was a proposal to construct a large road from Mexico all the way up to Oklahoma called the Trans-Texas Corridor and I went to protest for that and from there I became activist in political rallies and when the Tea Party movement really got started, I was at the first Tea Party in this city, Huntsville, a couple years ago and from there I went to a couple more. Just because I stay on top of politics in America, I think that young people should, or any American should, and I think it’s my duty to know what my representatives or my Congress or my President is doing and where and how I can change that if I don’t like it.
Is the Tea Party something particular about the South of the United States ?
I think that the South has this history of being rebellious against the Federal government. In the Civil War, of course, we were defiant toward the Federal government. Even though slavery was a main issue, the Civil War was actually fought over individual States rights and the Federal government not allowing the individual States to have their own laws governing their own particular land and it kind of becomes the same way with socialized medicine or abortion nationwide. If one State in particular doesn’t want that, then we feel like we shouldn’t have to have that. And this is a particular thing in the South because historically we felt that way. That’s why we seceded in the first place.
So if Texas was asking for secession today, would you be in favor of it ?
In principle, yes. I would support the thought but practically it wouldn’t make sense.
Why is that ?
America is way too strong, you don’t want to have them as an enemy, we’re right next to Mexico, which is dying to have Texas annexed into it so… We need America and America also needs Texas so there’s not going to be a secession but I would support the thought behind it, not the action though.
To come back to the Tea Party, what about the differences between the Republican Party and the particular branch of the Tea Party ? Is it really separate ?
When talking about Tea Party activists, I always refer to them as conservatives. They could be Democrats, it’s unlikely, most likely they’re Republicans because conservative ideology and Republicanism go hand in hand but it’s not necessarily a rule of thumb. I would say most Republicans are in favor of the Tea Party.
Do you think the Tea Party could separate completely from the Republicans and create a three-party system in America ?
I don’t think it’s possible. I think, if anything, it would just reform the Republican platform or maybe strengthen independents or conservatives. I think it would actually be detrimental if it formed its own party because politically speaking, I claim myself as a Republican when I go vote. People I support are Republicans most of the time. So there would be more of a chance for the Democrats to win an election if the Republican Party split up into mildly conservatives and Tea Party activists.
The Tea Party was created two years ago. Do you think it will be a long-lived important actor in US politics ?
I don’t think it’s going to be long-lived in the sense that the Republican and Democrat Parties have, they’ve been around for a long time. I don’t think that it’ll last that long, I think that this is a temporary movement seeking change and when that change comes about or there’s a compromise or a collaboration of some sort, then I think the Tea Party will eventually just die off. But I also think that it’s good, it’s taking the common persons in America and it’s giving them a voice of some sort and making the politicians listen to them and so I think that the politicians should learn from that and use it, at least listen to it. I don’t think that the Tea Party people want their way one hundred percent, that it has to be that way or they won’t be satisfied, they just want their representatives to listen to them and at least show that they’re listening and at least compromise on something. There could be some agreement there.
So, in other words, the Tea Party is bound to be a party of the opposition and could not be president material in the next election in 2012 ?
I think whoever is running as the Republican against Obama will most likely be somebody involved with the Tea Party.
So somebody involved with the Tea Party would be credible enough to be the President of the United States ?
Credible ? I don’t know why they wouldn’t be credible enough. I don’t think that Barack Obama was credible to be our president. So obviously that’s not a prerequisite.
Who would be the ideal Tea Party candidate then ? Do you have someone in mind ?
No, it’s too early. I thought that Sarah Palin would run , not necessarily that I would vote for her to be president, but I thought she would be somebody that would emerge. I’m not one hundred percent sure about that anymore. I don’t know who’s going to come out of the woodwork.
The Tea Party opposes a lot of things but how about suggesting solutions instead ? Isn’t it easier to say what is wrong than what would be right ?
(Hesitates)
In other words, can you give me an example of what the Obama administration is doing wrong and what you would do instead ?
I don’t know what I would do instead. And it is easier to say that’s not right than here’s something else we can do. I think that what they do is get their representatives to listen to them, get Congress to listen to the people and then at least be willing to discuss some other alternatives. I don’t know what in particular. There are problems in America that I personally have no idea how to solve. But that’s why we elect Senators and representatives, it’s because we trust them to have credible input in that. They work for us, we choose them for that purpose and when they’re not listening to the people that essentially are their boss, then that becomes a problem. First, we want the Congress to listen to us and then, when they do that, I think there can be an open forum as to what can we do differently, there’ll be more open minds to alternatives to these issues.
What are your hopes for America in the future ?
I think that America needs to reestablish their authority in the worldwide circus. Politically, militarily, economically. Our economy has become a joke, especially because of borrowing so much money from China. Military wise, we got ourselves into what I thought at the time a noble war, Afghanistan. We had to retaliate against the Talibans, we had to do that, otherwise it would just continue. I think George Bush’s heart was in the right place and I think it got out of hand. However, I don’t think that we could leave Iraq or the Middle East in the situation that it is in now. This is one issue that I don’t know how to fix. I don’t think that we should be there anymore but if we leave it’s just going to become worse. Barack Obama himself said that he would decrease troops numbers after he became president and in actuality he has increased the number of troops that we have in the Middle East because there’s really nothing else you can do. But I think America should reestablish itself as one a top if not the top world leader. I think that America has always been there to help other countries when they needed it and it has also been there to put countries in their place when they needed it.
So you think America has the right to go somewhere and “put countries in their place” like imposing democracy in Iraq for example ?
Well, I’m thinking more along the lines of the two World Wars that we fought in, America was a strong force ending those wars. It has worked in the past. Now, with Iraq it didn’t work because I think the people have a different want and need than before. But when Japan blew up Pearl Harbor we went and we retaliated and then we helped rebuild Japan and have played a huge role in their becoming one of the world leaders, it has one of the top economies in the world, even being such a small island it’s very efficient. Us helping them reestablish themselves pushed them forward.
So you want this leadership back ?
I think that other countries expect it and rely on it. We need it for ourselves and also for the people that need nurture.
Do you have examples of these “nurtured” countries ?
Well, going back to Japan since I know so much about that, they are not allowed to have a military, in turn, we take care of them. We help Israel a lot, we are allies with the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe. If something happens around the world, we give aid to anybody who needs it. If there’s a natural disaster, America is there, sending their military, sending aid.
So you think that Japanese people are glad not to have a military and to have you instead, taking care of them ?
Yes. I know enough Japanese people to say that yes. I think that’s the general consensus, that they’re glad that America is there.
Getting back to the American government, what’s your general opinion about Barack Obama ?
I think he’s a joke. I think he’s extremely charismatic, extremely manipulative and extremely unqualified for the job of presidency.
Can you give me concrete examples of what you think he’s been doing wrong ?
He didn’t do anything right. For instance, even if you didn’t like George Bush – he was an appallingly bad public speaker, I can admit that, especially being a communication major – after September 11, immediately, George Bush was there, at the scene, talking to people, talking on TV, showing the people that he cares, that he’s there, that America is not going to back down. After Katrina, he was there. He was in Louisiana, speaking of what to do, how to fix this. He showed the people that he was listening to them, that he cared about them. When there was the oil spill off of the coast of Louisiana, what was Obama doing ? He was vacationing. This was the worst oil spill in world history, I believe, and he’s taking a vacation ? It took him two weeks to get down to the coast to even evaluate, he was there for two hours. Anytime he does anything there has to be a camera around because he has to have recognition. I think that Obama cares more about how people look at him than what he’s actually doing for this country.
Tell me what George W. Bush did right during his two terms then.
Well, he imposed tax cuts instead of raising taxes. I was very young when he was elected president, I’m trying to remember… I think he was right to not show America as weak, especially in such a pivotal point of our history. If we had done nothing, it would have been a message to other terrorists, potentially, “if we do something to America they’re not going to do anything”. I think it was very important that we did what we did after September 11 to show that we’re not just sitting ducks.
But do you think that attacking a country is going to do something against terrorism ?
Well, we’re not necessarily attacking a country. We’re going in to find specific people. And, like I said, it evolved into something I don’t really know what it is now. But at the beginning we were just going to find certain people.
But the main problem with terrorism is that it’s an entity without country so do you really think it was the solution ?
Yes. To use George Bush’s words, this is a war on terrorism, not necessarily a war with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan as countries. It was a war against the people that attacked us.
What about the “weapons of massive destruction” that nobody ever found ?
The one thing I can say is that it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Let’s talk about some major issues in the world of today. What do you think America’s involvement should be as far as the environment and global warming are concerned ?
I don’t believe in men cause global warming. I think that we could be more environmentally conscious, for example recycle more, use less energy when it’s not needed. I think that everybody can be more aware of the environment. However, I don’t think we should be charged for the amount of carbon we put into the air. I don’t want my government to tell me how to live my life, I don’t want my government that involved in my personal life. I think that they could make a regulation, and they have made regulations for oil refineries, when you have to reduce the amount of pollution that your putting in the air. Now that kind of stuff is acceptable but don’t start regulating things that happen in my house.
The huge crisis that Japan is going through has raised many questions about nuclear energy. Do you think a debate should take place ?
In the case of Japan, I know that the safety mechanisms were not meeting standards. As long as you have those regulations, again the government should step in as far as safety goes on a large scale, they are checked out, it’s going to work and they have a backup plan in case it doesn’t, as long as your realize the effects that could happen, have a plan for if it does and make sure that it doesn’t happen, then I think it’s okay.
Presidential candidates have to talk about their faith during their campaign. Do you think that religion is important in politics ?
We do have this notion of separation of church and state in America and I do agree with that. However, people that just vote for their candidate based on just a party affiliation, like “okay you’re a Democrat, I don’t have to listen to any of your speeches, I’m going to vote for you” or vice versa, then those people don’t care. But a lot of people, including myself, think otherwise. I want to know what kind of people the candidates are, what their family life is like, what they are interested in, what their religion is, because to me, if I know a little bit about the person, then I can better interpret them or expect things from them. Even though I don’t think religion should be a main issue in an election, I think it should at least be discussed because that lets you know a lot about that person’s core of beliefs. So that’s important. If a candidate refused to talk about his religious beliefs, that would bother me. I don’t care what religion it is but I would at least like to know so I know what kind of person he is or generally what to expect from his behavior or thought.
By the way, are you among the people who question Obama’s religion and birthplace ?
Yes. I don’t think he’s a Christian, I don’t think he was born in the US. The most compelling argument for his birthplace seems to be Kenya.
What is the evidence that leads you to this conclusion ?
Well, what is the evidence that he is an American citizen ? Why wouldn’t he just say “look, here’s my birth certificate” ?
I think he did.
I don’t think so.
Would that be a problem if he was a Muslim ?
Because we’re fighting a war in a part of the world that is predominantly Muslim, it would make me wonder how he would handle that war, if he would have special interests, so to speak.
Does the Tea Party have special views about religion ?
I think a majority of people would agree that “one nation under God” was formed as a Christian nation. I don’t think that people want religion taught in school, make it mandatory but I think that what they do want is more freedom with religion in public places. Like to be able to pray in school or that sort of thing. More freedom, not necessarily pressed on people, not like that, but if you do want to pray, then that should be allowed. I think that goes for any religion as well.
Still on religion, Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in evolution. Do you ?
No, I don’t. Okay, I believe in evolution to a certain extent. Do I believe that we came from monkeys ? Absolutely not ! I think that life forms have evolved, so to speak, to… I wouldn’t use the word “evolve”, I would use the word “adapt”. They have adapted to their surroundings, they have changed parts of the world, diets, of course genes mixing with each other, people marrying different races. We have adapted and changed over time but did we come from a completely different species ? I find that impossible. But then again I’m a Christian, I believe that everything is created.
To be politically incorrect for a second, you don’t have a problem with Barack Obama’s race, do you ?
No. I couldn’t care less. But I find it interesting that a lot of black people that I talked to have confessed to me that they did vote for him solely because he is a black man. And I have a problem with that.
But you know that he’s not a black man, he is as white as he is black…
Yeah, but physically he is black, he’s not Caucasian.
Do you think it should matter ?
No, I don’t think it should matter. I think that their beliefs, their platform, their goals for the presidency, that is what should matter. Just like I don’t think that religion should matter, but I think it should be discussed so you know what you’re getting.*
*Again, since MUSE died I thought it was really worth having this published somewhere, it’s really edifying. Interview conducted in Huntsville, Texas on April 8, 2011.
Raph @ SHSU – Winter thoughts on a few Southern clichés
The first striking detail to the eye of a Swiss guy lost in the South of the United States is that there is no such thing as a sidewalk in Huntsville, Texas. You can look for a trace of public transports all you want, you won’t find anything else than huge trucks competing for the biggest environmental disaster award. The first thing to do is therefore to find friends in possession of a car (“a single man in possession of a good fortune”, as some obscure European scribbler might put it, is not the best solution this time). Yes, to survive in Texas, if you’re an honest pedestrian like me, you need a ride. In a country where people drive to their mail box (true story, I’ve seen it happen), you might even be considered crazy for walking to campus (“you what ?”), if your Swiss passport wasn’t already enough to have you labeled as a touristic attraction. In the same line of thought, the phrase “within walking distance” takes a whole new meaning here. If you want to walk somewhere – sorry, let me rephrase that – if you have to walk somewhere, you might want to ask how long it takes to get there, in minutes. Yes, in minutes because otherwise you’ll get an answer involving blocks, yards or miles and you’ll have to do the math and you didn’t choose to study literature for that. The whole purpose of this precise question is that if the walk exceeds two minutes, your Texan roommate is very likely to tell you that it’s really far and that there’s no way one can go there on foot. Keep in mind that Dallas, a little less than three hours away from Huntsville (by car, I had to adopt the trend for this one), is almost considered as a foreign country for some natives of the area. I might be exaggerating a wee bit here but you get the picture. And that’s why when you want to visit cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin or San Antonio you’d better find some fellow international students who are motivated to leave their couch for the weekend. And a car rental of course.
What on God’s green earth am I doing there, might you ask at this point. That’s also what people tend to ask me a lot here. Let’s call that a happy accident. And this huge part of the country (about 17 times Switzerland !) was definitely worth the accident. As you might have already guessed reading the first paragraph, most of the clichés my classmates back in Lausanne were teasing me about prove to be more or less accurate. And I haven’t evoked the total absence of environmental consciousness as far as trash is concerned, the kids going to class wearing a cowboy hat and boots and the fact that I heard through the grapevine that Texas was supposedly the fattest State in the Union. To go beyond those juicy details, Texas is mainly a land of extremes. The best examples being the way the temperature in winter can vary between 22°C one day and -6°C the day after (it is worth stressing that once winter is over, the temperature basically never drops below 25°C and it NEVER rains) or having a conversation with your roommate about how accurate Barack Obama is about health insurance and how retarded Sarah Palin is and hearing a professor deny global warming the next morning. Talking about denying, some people here might also refuse the idea of evolution and call their fellow citizens from the North the Yankees (apparently Huntsville is planning to fly the Confederate flag in the historical cemetery). In other words, the New South hasn’t totally overcome some diehard concepts dating back to 1861. In the face of these observations, it is little wonder that the Tea Party has found its best support in the Southern States so far. Moreover, if you’re not too much into church stuff, you might want to be careful before attending a meeting of the International Student Friendship Ministry (the name already sounds suspicious, right ?) and discovering that it’s actually more like some sort of Bible study than anything else. In short, religion is really big in this State.
The campus is really a city in itself within Huntsville though. People say that there are two types of people in town, the prison people (you might have heard this one too, yes, Huntsville is the city where the chamber of execution of the State of Texas is located, along with 6 jails) and the university people. And they’re easily distinguishable… I hope I haven’t completely put you off about Sam Houston yet because I have to say that the English department is really good, small enough to create a friendly atmosphere, not unlike Lausanne as a matter of fact. Being able to study the literature of the American South (another Norton Anthology to add to my collection…) while actually being in the South offers a whole new and refreshing perspective on the subject in a classroom where students are much more reactive to discussion topics than back home and the professor is really able to trigger interaction involving the whole class. Well, at least during the first weeks of the semester because people tend to be a little less zealous after Spring Break apparently. Moreover, according to my advisor, I’m the first exchange student in the English department at least in the last ten years (I do know a colony of German exchange students mainly studying management or business though). Foreign people tend to enroll at Sam Houston but more likely as permanent students until they get their degree and a very large majority of them are Japanese, Korean or from Central and South America, according to my experience so far. This means that I’m the only non native speaker around as far as my field of studies is concerned, which makes things tough but above all really interesting. Another plus side is that you will find yourself eager to develop your cooking abilities as soon as possible after discovering that all the cafeterias on campus are actually some sort of fast food malls where Burger King, Starbucks Coffee or Pizza Hut are the best you will get. On the down side (some might think it’s a good thing though, at least you’re likely to avoid the last minute rush before the paper is due), it feels like high school all over again with actual homework (that you have to hand in before class starts) and daily quizzes that will be added to your final grade. Oh and if you fail to attend more than three sessions, you’re very likely to fail the whole class. I know some people back in Lausanne who wouldn’t like this system at all…
If I do have time to write this article though, it’s because it snowed last night and there’s probably one centimeter or less of white powder covering the roads this morning, which means that all the classes are canceled at Sam Houston. People really panic here when snow is expected, everybody’s been talking about that all week, professors have been giving more time to hand in assignments “because of the weather” and we’ve received an alarming notice from the University House where I live entitled “FREEZING WARNING !”. The mentality is also very different from Switzerland in the way Texans consider themselves “snowed in” (of course, they can’t use their car, the notion of winter tires being unknown here, what else would they do outside ?) in such conditions whereas one would imagine that some kids would like to enjoy a snowball fight at some point. Thank God I still have food and beer (not American light beer unless you just want water…) for tonight because nothing seems to be working around Huntsville today ! All right, that was my postcard from Sam Houston State University, see you guys in June !*
*Since MUSE (Magazine for Unil Students of English) seems to have recently died, I thought I’d still publish this article I wrote back in winter somewhere, I think it’s worth a look. Of course it’s only my highly biased opinion on Texas, nothing more.
I’m back
Alexandre Tremblay commençait à désespérer au LHC...
Eh oui, je n’ai plus rien écrit depuis novembre 2009, alors que Marat Safin prenait sa retraite. Il est temps de sortir de la mienne. Il s’en est passé des choses en presque 2 ans ! Federer a empoché sa 16e couronne, Wawrinka commence à gagner des matches importants, Hewitt ne touche plus terre, l’équipe de Suisse de football est encore plus mauvaise qu’avant (malgré un petit sursaut à Wembley samedi), le LHC a raté deux promotions de plus et a décidé d’innover pour la saison prochaine en ne faisant pas de transferts, on évite d’être déçu par les nouveaux arrivants de cette façon, le mythique Alexandre Tremblay a quitté ce même LHC pour Viège, Ben Laden est mort (vous remarquerez que je procède par ordre décroissant d’importance…), … Bref, j’en passe et des meilleures. J’espère revenir ici bientôt pour pousser quelques coups de gueules bien sentis sur un sujet ou l’autre. See you around folks !
Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Alexandre_Tremblay_-_Lausanne_Hockey_Club_vs._HC_Vi%C3%A8ge%2C_01.04.2010.jpg
Farewell Marat Safin
Dear Marat,
I’ll never forget you, your game, your bad temper, your humor, your way of always speaking your mind. In 2004, on the day he retired after losing against Lleyton Hewitt in the first round of his beloved Wimbledon, Goran Ivanisevic, speaking of his jokes and crushed rackets, said that there was one Ivanisevic for each generation and that you were likely to be the one sporting this title in the years to come. In a way, he was right. Except he was totally wrong. Your personality is too strong to be limited to a comparison. You are Marat Safin.
Some said your career was a waste. I confess I’m among these people. Fabrice Santoro, asked to comment on your encounter with Lleyton Hewitt in the Paris-Bercy final in 2002, said: “This is the number one in the world against the best player in the world”. By “best player in the world”, he was referring to you. In my opinion, there are only two active players whose talent can be compared with yours: Roger Federer and Tommy Haas. You won 2 Grand Slam titles and experienced a short-lived reign as number one in the world. Any average player would put that on their Christmas wish list. But you’re not an average player. You are Marat Safin.
I don’t resent you for that, though. You wanted to party more than you wanted to hurt yourself on a practice court. Your choice, nobody can blame you for that. I only really hated you once, when you broke Lleyton Hewitt and Australia’s dream in 2005 for your last moment of glory. But I forgive you for all the wonderful moments you gave us all. If I had to choose one right now, it would be your shorts-dropping against Felix Mantilla in Roland Garros in 2004. This sums up all the fun you could give the crowd without even hitting a ball. A shame the chair umpire didn’t take it that way at the time…
Farewell Marat, enjoy your life !
A fan
Picture: The Age http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2009/01/21/tennis__13__gallery__522x400.jpg
15-love
- Roddick a beau s’arracher…
... la victoire est pour Federer.
Roger Federer (SUI/2) bat Andy Roddick (USA/6) 5-7 7-6 7-6 3-6 16-14
Roger Federer. Cet homme est le plus grand joueur de tennis de tous les temps. “He’s a legend” a dit Pete Sampras. Et il sait de quoi il parle le bougre. Cette légende, Federer vient d’achever de la bâtir (jusqu’à la prochaine fois) en battant le record incroyable de l’Américain aux 14 titres du Grand Chelem. Pour ce faire, il a dû se débarrasser d’un autre Américain, Andy Roddick, en finale, sous les yeux de Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Björn Borg et John McEnroe, entre autres. Une finale monumentale. Pas tant grâce au niveau de jeu proposé, qui n’était de loin pas celui de l’an passé contre Rafael Nadal, mais plutôt grâce à une tension de tous les instants. La faute à deux facteurs principaux: premièrement, Andy Roddick (il faut bien laisser cela au courageux natif du Nebraska) évoluait à un niveau jamais connu jusqu’à présent dans sa carrière, niveau que l’on avait déjà entrevu lors des deux tours précédents face à Hewitt et Murray. Cela lui a permis de brouiller les cartes alors que toutes, absolument toutes les statistiques l’opposant à Roger Federer étaient contre lui et que beaucoup attendaient une victoire facile du Bâlois. La victoire n’a pas été aussi facile que prévu (loin s’en faut !) également pour une deuxième raison: il faut bien le dire, Federer était loin de son meilleur niveau et semblait très nerveux, ce qui l’a amené à être très passif pendant une bonne partie de la rencontre et à s’exposer aux coups de boutoir de son adversaire.
Mais heureusement pour lui, son service et les dieux du tennis l’ont sauvé. Son service (50 aces !) dans une cinquième manche qui n’a pas été grand chose d’autre qu’une bataille d’aces et de services gagnants ne l’a jamais lâché, même dans les moments où tous les autres coups de son jeu étaient aux abonnés absents. Les dieux du tennis dans le tie-break du deuxième set quand Roddick a eu quatre balles de deux sets à zéro dans sa raquette (6-2) et qu’il a certainement commencé à réfléchir à quel endroit il exposerait la coupe du champion. Résultat des courses, 8-6 pour le Suisse et certainement un premier tournant dans ce match complètement fou. Roger Federer a plié, il a été au bord de la rupture (15-40 sur un de ses jeux de service au 5e set), mais il n’a jamais rompu. C’est finalement à 15-14 dans la manche décisive que notre concitoyen parvient à breaker son adversaire d’outre-Atlantique pour la première et seule fois (!!!) du match. Il remporte son 15e titre du Grand Chelem, son 6e Wimbledon, sa 19e victoire consécutive entre le premier tour du tournoi de Madrid et cette finale et il récupère du même coup son trône de n°1 mondial. Pas mal pour quelqu’un qui va en plus de tout cela devenir papa cet été !
Il faut aussi saluer la bravoure d’Andy Roddick. Le mari de Brooklyn Decker en est à sa 19e défaite contre le maître en 21 confrontations, dont 4 en finale de Grand Chelem (toutes perdues), et il se bat toujours avec la même fougue à chaque fois qu’il affronte notre icône nationale. Aujourd’hui aussi il y a cru pendant 4h16, mais, encore une fois, cela n’a pas suffi. Et personne n’aurait crié au scandale s’il l’avait emporté. Il fait partie de ceux qui ont eu la malchance de jouer à la même époque qu’un champion d’exception, comme tous ceux qui sont tombés sur Pete Sampras au sommet de sa gloire (on citera Tim Henman et Goran Ivanisevic parmi les plus malchanceux). Imaginez un instant quelle aurait pu être la carrière de celui qui a affronté Roger Federer 8 fois dans un tournoi majeur pour autant de victoires de ce dernier et qui n’a qu’un Major à son palmarès (l’US Open 2003)… Imaginez donc quelle doit être sa détresse après être passé aussi près d’une récompense qui aurait été plus que méritée. Mais Roger Federer – et l’Histoire – en ont voulu autrement.
Image 1: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01437/roddick-federer_1437052c.jpg
Image 2: http://rogerfederer.ucoz.com/roger-federer-2009-wimbledon.jpg
It feels like 2001 again
2001
2009
Andy Roddick (USA/6) defeated Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 6-3 6-7 7-6 4-6 6-4
Yes, it really feels like 2001 again. Let’s go back in time. September 6, 2001 on Arthur Ashe Stadium in the 1/4 of the US Open, Lleyton Hewitt (20 years old at the time), number 4 in the world defeated the newbie Andy Roddick (just turned 19), number 18 in the world, on his way to his first Grand Slam title and to the number 1 rank later that year. The match ended after five sets (6-7 6-3 6-4 3-6 6-4), as it did today. But with a different outcome and different players. Today, Andy Roddick (26) has been a confirmed top ten player for seven years and is currently 6th in the world whereas Lleyton Hewitt (28) is recovering from hip surgery with a current ranking of 56th. And this time the American won this thriller in the 1/4 of Wimbledon. There’s another difference though: this victory is less likely to lead Roddick to his second Grand Slam title (after US Open 2003) because Roger Federer (n°2) and Andy Murray (N°3) seem a bit too much for Larry Stefanki’s boy. But who knows ? In New York in 2001, Hewitt had to face Pete Sampras (n° 10 and with 13 Grand Slams in his pocket at the time), Marat Safin (n°3 and defending champion) and Yevgeni Kafelnikov (n°7) on his way to his Graal.
Let’s be honest, he deserves it. At the end of the day, he was probably the best player out there. He served amazingly well (43 aces including some on very important points), his forehand was at its best and his backhand and volley seemed better than usual. Hewitt was less brilliant than against Del Potro but he didn’t give up anything, as we knew he would. He started very badly with two double faults in his first service game, which helped his opponent to break him and cost him the first set. He was a break up in the second before almost dropping the set again. At 2-5 in the tiebreak, he pulled himself together to create one of the most epic moments of the match, eventually taking the tiebreak and second set 12-10. At 6-6 in the third set, the Australian seemed to lose his concentration, lost the tiebreak 7-1 and gave up his serve to find himself down 0-2 in the fourth set.
At this moment, A-Rod seemed on his way to a semifinal clash against Briton (and only hope of a whole people) Andy Murray. But Lleyton Hewitt is only beaten when the last ball is gone and there was no way he’d give Roddick an easy victory. He broke twice and took the set 6-4. Fifth sets are often great tennis moments, epic battles. This one was not different. There were break points on both sides but finally Roddick prevailed. A parameter might have been more important than others: serve. Hewitt’s serve was too weak (59% first serve, 9 double faults) for him to be able to secure his service games. He struggled to keep his serve during the whole match whereas Roddick could fire a big serve at any given moment.
If we were to draw conclusions so far in this tournament, we would say that the old generation is far from dead (also thanks to Tommy Haas (31 years old and former number 2 in the world) who upset world number 4 Novak Djokovic) and even on the contrary: Roddick has been improving his game, especially the strokes that were called weak not so long ago and Hewitt is still on his way up to the top 20 and maybe even better. It’s 2001 all over again !
Picture 1: http://photos.upi.com/slideshow/lbox/b32f56dd09ec88ac908fbac197b6f3b8/NYP2001090678.jpg
Picture 2: http://www.lleytonhewitt.biz/articleslleyton/images/uso2001/q14.jpg
Picture 3: http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Championship+Wimbledon+2009+Day+Nine+3MxULgNMTJtl.jpg
Picture 4: http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Championship+Wimbledon+2009+Day+Nine+gHV46vPauTHl.jpg
Hewitt fights his way to the 1/4 et Stan… Rhaaa, toujours pas ! Mais si près…
Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) defeated Radek Stepanek (CZE/23) 4-6 2-6 6-1 6-2 6-2
Even though Lleyton Hewitt is currently 56th in the world (that will have changed a lot by December, that’s for sure) and his Grand Slam titles go way back, there’s one thing you’ll never be able to take from him: his fighting spirit. “Yeah, obviously, mate !” will be his answer if you ask him the question.
So his famous fighting spirit opened Hewitt’s way to the final eight today against Radek Stepanek (23rd seed) from Czech Republic. After his shy (not to say shaky) start (and Stepanek’s quick start with bold attacks and good serves), he found himself two sets down. When the Australian asked for the trainer at 4-6 2-5, only the “Fanatics” from Down Under still believed in their star’s chances.
However, after this medical time out, the former number one got his best tennis back and improved his serve percentage to lead 4-0 before a brief rain delay. Afterwards, Hewitt continued playing well, jumping on every occasion, to win the match in five sets (he came back from two sets to love for the 6th time of his career) against a Stepanek paying for his two previous five-setters and suffering from a knee injury.
For the first time since 2006, Lleyton Hewitt is back in 1/4 in a Grand Slam. And he can also thank his Aussie supporters for that, as he did at the end of the match by giving them towels and wristbands and telling the BBC journalist that they deserved to be offered a few beers. So “cheers, mate !” as Lleyton said at the end of the interview. See you on Wednesday for a classic match between Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick !
Andy Murray (GBR/3) bat Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI/19) 2-6 6-3 6-3 5-7 6-3
Le public du Centre Court de Wimbledon se souviendront de ce 29 juin 2009 ! Tout d’abord pour la première fermeture du fameux toit (même s’il avait déjà été fermé samedi en toute fin de journée) pendant le match Safina-Mauresmo, toit qui a permis à Murray et Wawrinka de terminer leur match au bout de la nuit sous une lumière artificielle. Car c’était surtout cela qui valait le déplacement en ce septième jour du tournoi. Qui aurait pensé que le Vaudois allait pousser l’Ecossais dans ses derniers retranchements ? Sûrement pas les nombreux sujets de Sa Très Gracieuse Majesté présents dans la majestueuse enceinte. Et il faut bien dire que du côté helvétique on n’y croyait que moyennement après la performance en demi-teinte de Stan face au modeste Jesse Levine, 133e mondial de son état.
D’emblée, le citoyen de Saint-Barthélémy enflammait le match, notamment avec son somptueux revers qui fut sa meilleure arme presque quatre heures durant, pour empocher facilement le premier set à la surprise générale face à un Murray “à côté de ses pompes”. La stupeur passée le numéro 3 mondial retrouvait peu à peu son jeu de défense extraordinaire (avec notamment un coup droit croisé, que ce soit en passing, en retour ou en attaque de fond de court, tout simplement inarrêtable) et ne commettait presque plus de fautes, au contraire de Wawrinka qui en commettait de plus en plus et servait de moins en moins bien.
C’est à ce moment que débute le festival de balles de break manquées (4 sur 14 réussies au final). Murray gagne tous les points importants et se détache deux manches à une. On se dit alors que, comme d’habitude, ce match sera celui des occasions manquées pour le Suisse. Mais au moment où on n’y croit plus, Wawrinka convertit enfin une balle de break à 5-5 dans le quatrième set pour emmener son adversaire dans un cinquième set dantesque, final ô combien mérité pour un match de toute beauté.
Et même si c’est Murray qui l’emporte au forceps, au grand soulagement de toute la Grande Bretagne, on ne peut pas reprocher grand chose à Stan (contrairement à ses autres défaites en Grand Chelem, notamment contre Gonzalez à Paris en 2008, contre Safin à Wimbledon la même année ou encore contre Chela à New York en 2007) qui a été courageux jusqu’au bout, ne lâchant jamais son os. Andy Murray a su remporter les points les plus importants et ainsi justifier son statut de numéro 3 mondial et prétendant au titre sur le gazon londonien. Le prochain adversaire au menu du Britannique sera l’autre revenant (avec Hewitt et Haas), l’Espagnol et ancien numéro 1 mondial Juan Carlos Ferrero.
Picture 1: http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200906/r392100_1834095.jpg
Image 2: http://www.stanwawrinka.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/WawrinkaMurray-Wimbledon9-M-1508.jpg
