Tweet
Juilan, I tried three times to add this to your thread, but it wouldn't take.
So here it is.
Bodo's characterization of Soderling in no way resembled the gracious, humorous, self-effacing runner-up who spoke at the Roland Garros awards ceremony. Perhaps Soderling turned down a request from Bodo for an interview, so Bodo did a hatchet job on him?
I bet that Soderling gained hundreds of thousands of fans. He was already one of my favorites to watch, although I was hoping that Federer would win this one. Soderling just might go far at Wimbledon this time.
I'm also looking forward to seeing how Mats Wilander handles Federer's victory, after having declared that, after his worst loss to Nadal, Federer had no balls, or shrunken balls. Since then, he has continued to question whether Federer should be considered the greatest ever. What's his problem, I wonder.
I think Lendl is right -- that perhaps Federer should be considererd the best since 1968, and Laver before that. But maybe Lendl, himself, has the best record of all, considering who he had to beat to win more titles than anyone, other than Connors, and to remain number one so long. I think he would have won more and been number one longer if he had not injured his back running down a dropshot in Philadelphia. But he wasn't a favorite and still doesn't get much respect.
So here it is.
Bodo's characterization of Soderling in no way resembled the gracious, humorous, self-effacing runner-up who spoke at the Roland Garros awards ceremony. Perhaps Soderling turned down a request from Bodo for an interview, so Bodo did a hatchet job on him?
I bet that Soderling gained hundreds of thousands of fans. He was already one of my favorites to watch, although I was hoping that Federer would win this one. Soderling just might go far at Wimbledon this time.
I'm also looking forward to seeing how Mats Wilander handles Federer's victory, after having declared that, after his worst loss to Nadal, Federer had no balls, or shrunken balls. Since then, he has continued to question whether Federer should be considered the greatest ever. What's his problem, I wonder.
I think Lendl is right -- that perhaps Federer should be considererd the best since 1968, and Laver before that. But maybe Lendl, himself, has the best record of all, considering who he had to beat to win more titles than anyone, other than Connors, and to remain number one so long. I think he would have won more and been number one longer if he had not injured his back running down a dropshot in Philadelphia. But he wasn't a favorite and still doesn't get much respect.