2009 in Review: So Long, and Thanks For All The Fuss
Every year throws up a lot of fuss. I don't know about other sports, but in tennis it does. If it doesn't, that year hasn't done well and it better be ashamed of itself.
The first fuss was over Roger Federer not beating Rafael Nadal at the Australian Open. He played a great match and Nadal was supposed to be tired and all after playing for some five hours a couple of days back. Federer simply did not play a good last set.
People seemed to sense some sort of unfairness in this. Most of them who were Federer fans, and the rest of them who were afraid of most of them, did not want to point the finger at Federer.
They could not point the finger at Nadal too—he won the match. So they simply assumed that it was all Andy Murray's fault. Yea we haven't heard the arguments yet, but that is because people are still finalizing the logic.
The next fuss was over Federer crying in the presentation ceremony. The two fusses happened in immediate succession.
This really called for a strong debate. Why does Federer always cry? Whether he won or not, he cried. This was also unfair (the logic by which this is established is called "fussy logic ." A wiki page is yet to come up, so you are kindly directed to a page on "fuzzy logic," again by the same logic).
Then came Nadal's parents' divorce and Rafa losing to Juan Martin del Potro. There was some debate as to which was more unfair among the two. Nadal had no excuse to lose. Indeed his parents' divorce should have propelled him to fight more. Coming to think of it now, it was all his fault.
Then came the biggest fuss. Le Sod beat Nadal on Clay. Wasn't there an understanding or something amongst all the players on the ATP that no one would try to beat Nadal on clay?
Part of it had to do with the fact that he was unbeatable on clay. But the real reason is that none of the current players liked Borg and they wanted to see Borg's record being erased—all of them in fact. What punishment Le Sod should be given is still being debated. There seem to be too many options.
Going by the same argument, everyone was happy that Nadal did not play Wimbledon, since this time his absence allowed Federer to break another of Borg's records. Though there were some grumblings about Tony Nadal not foreseeing this probable injury and such meaningless stuff, people kept their voices low in view of the bigger purpose.
The next unfair thing was Andy Roddick taking Federer to five sets at Wimbledon, and then some. With that it has been judged that he has used all the luck of his life, his share of narrow escapes, and good fortunes. No wonder he is not producing result though he is playing well.
And what business had del Potro have playing so well at the US Open? Beating Nadal 6-2 6-2 6-2! The man was in physical and mental pain that day. And then go on to beat the "Great Man?" That would be all for JMDP for the rest of the year.
Serena created her own fuss in the meanwhile. Actually she was talking about tennis balls and throats generally and not about putting them together. The poor lineswoman simply misunderstood her. Some people are of the opinion that Serena is to be blamed. Others are of the opinion that it is the lineswoman's fault. A third section is generally clueless and are "considering" Clijster's role in the whole episode.
Then came the biggest fuss of all time. Agassi's Open. The first fuss was over a misunderstanding that this was a new tournament that Agassi and Steffi were launching to rival the Grand Slams.
Then people realised that this was a book and he was actually trying to rival Harry Potter. And then they heard about crystal meth. The first to make the fuss over this were tennis players. Then came the writers who made a fuss over Agassi himself and over the tennis players making a fuss over this. It is reported that the sale of crystal meth has more than doubled after Agassi's revelation.
Beyond this point there are not many fusses since Davydenko started winning from here on. Nikolay Davydenko and "fuss" are like the worst enemies. It could be said that Davydenko got the better of "fuss."
Now in this holiday season, it can be seen that a lot of writers here are making a fuss over the "best match," "best winner," "best loser," "How he fared in 2009" etc. That is an amazing climax to a year of great fuss.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?