Who wants to bet that Roger felt sorry for Guille, realised this match doesn't matter, and promptly decided to lose the second set as badly as possible in order to give the crowd a better match? I've never seen Roger play quite so many bad points in a row and yet, somehow, he doesn't seem to be getting annoyed at himself. In fact I caught a little quirk at one point that looked kinda like he was trying not to smile as he looked at his racquet. My commentators agree; they keep repeating the words 'manufactured himself a target', though they're a little dubious about him doing it all on purpose. (I've also never heard them say 'bizarre' as often as they have in the last half an hour.)
For me, Roger winning that one game on his last serve proved it. Commentators just said that he'd never been bagelled and what does he do? Win *one* game. How... convenient. ;)
If he loses, then I might change my mind. If he comes back to miraculously win this at the last possible second?
Well. How... convenient that would be. ;-)
If he is doing this for Guille and to make it a better match, he's even more of a sweetheart than I thought. :)
edit: It's amazing. When he's good, he's very very good. When he's being bad, he's *still* good at it. Even though to me it looked obvious that he was blatently losing on purpose, the commentators are still skating around actually *saying* it. And now he's going to sail through and win and no one will ever sit him down and actually ask flat out "Did you lose that second set on purpose?" Because he managed to make playing badly look natural.
I love this match. ^__^
For me, Roger winning that one game on his last serve proved it. Commentators just said that he'd never been bagelled and what does he do? Win *one* game. How... convenient. ;)
If he loses, then I might change my mind. If he comes back to miraculously win this at the last possible second?
Well. How... convenient that would be. ;-)
If he is doing this for Guille and to make it a better match, he's even more of a sweetheart than I thought. :)
edit: It's amazing. When he's good, he's very very good. When he's being bad, he's *still* good at it. Even though to me it looked obvious that he was blatently losing on purpose, the commentators are still skating around actually *saying* it. And now he's going to sail through and win and no one will ever sit him down and actually ask flat out "Did you lose that second set on purpose?" Because he managed to make playing badly look natural.
I love this match. ^__^
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 02:26 pm (UTC)I also think he was doing it on purpose, because he could totally play well when he needed too. He's such a cutie.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 02:40 pm (UTC)I'm glad I'm not the only one. Weren't some of the shots he was hitting on big points just awesome? And yet when losing the point worked for Guille, he'd hit an absolutely appalling shot; some of them he *had* to have hit on purpose. I love that he didn't just flatten Guille 6-0, 6-0. He just got even more adorable. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-17 02:52 pm (UTC)Some of his shots were just completely awesome, he was Roger at his best, and then some of his errors were totally out of nowhere and so un-Roger like they can't have all been accidently. He had some huge unforced error count too, which just isn't him. He had to have been doing it on purpose, otherwise it makes no sense, unless he just got bored of playing when he was winning that easily. I prefer to go for the 'on purpose' option, because it makes him cuter. Which was very hard, because Roger was already totally adorable.