Disappointments and Overreactions

Every so often, friends disappoint us. No matter how caring or well intentioned, no matter how much they may have done for us (or vice versa), friends occasionally disappoint.

Sometimes the reason they disappoint is unforeseen, out of character. But more often the source of our disappointment is clear: some well established habit or personality trait manifests itself again.

And sometimes that habit or trait emerges once too often and we find ourselves disappointed, frustrated, and perhaps even angry at our friends. In most cases our response is an overreaction, for we knew of our friend's habits. Further, their habits have more to do with them than they have with us. They are their habits.

Nevertheless, we are disappointed and find ourselves upset and acting rashly - perhaps to the point of damaging the friendship. Such was recently the case with me.

In what should have otherwise been a pleasant day, my hiking companion led a rhetorical assault on an activity I've recently become fond of. His attempted negation of all value in my new-found endeavor got under my skin.

Though such arguments are common when he encounters something he doesn't appreciate, I let it get to me. There was simply something about the dubiously reasoned negation that seemed to be assailing anything new, anything providing the possibility of wonder.

It may have been that the attacks were meant to be humorous, though I found them needlessly mean-spirited (especially after I tried to drop the conversation twice). Perhaps the arguments were in earnest, in which case I wonder about the hypocrisy of my friend. (He assailed my new avocation with charges of elitism, exclusivity, pejorative nicknames for the uninitiated, disrespect for the environment, lack of skill, and the like; but most of those those alleged offenses don't bother him in a multitude of other circumstances.)

Despite my best rebuttals of his arguments, I was making no ground. He was unwilling to budge - which is fine. He need not agree to like an activity he doesn't like.

Though I might like to have more companions on my many quests, I am not in the business of recruiting. I do not argue, ask for, or even desire assent to my opinion in this matter (or most others). Mostly I was offended that his arguments didn't hold water. To every negative inquiry, there was an adequate, and yet unacknowledged, response.

I don't mind if you don't want to do something. There's no right or wrong in your opinion about what you enjoy (unless you're lying to yourself). But there is a point at which rationalizing your opinion becomes a needless attack on a friend.

If you like pie, eat pie. If you don't like pie, well, don't eat it. Don't attack your pie eating friends with your rationalizations for not liking pie, just don't eat it.

People often ask me why I don't like some food or other, and I strain to come up with reasons. Is it the texture? Is it the flavor? Mostly it's that I don't enjoy it. We can argue all day about why that is. We can hypothesize that it might have root in my refusal to try new foods as a child. But the simple fact of the present is that I don't enjoy that food.

I simply don't recall ever trying to tell a friend that they shouldn't like something because I don't like it. I often state what I like or dislike and why, but not as a means to persuade others.

Maybe my friend wasn't trying to tell me that what I liked to do was stupid and destructive, but it sure came off that way. The line between his opinion and his argument for some "truth of the matter" became quite blurry and unpleasant.

Nevertheless, with all that said, I overreacted. I became disappointed, frustrated with, and angry at my friend. Though I was familiar with his pattern of behavior, I became unduly upset.

Maybe it was the negation. Maybe he seemed to be attacking hope itself. Whatever it was that got me, it says more about me than him.

I walked quickly away from my friend the other day; and though I did not abandon him on the trail, I said nary a word afterward. Perhaps, in time, he'll forgive me.

And the Stage is Set Yet Again

Well, I've been away for a while. You might have noticed. But I'm back, at least temporarily. You could say that this post is a snarky finger pointed at my good friend, Sir rLog.

Nevertheless, the stage is set yet again. For the third straight year, Roger Federer will face Rafael Nadal for the French Open title. Yet again, Nadal enters the final looking verily unbeatable on the clay. And once again, Roger Federer has a chance at history.

Federer still lacks the French Open crown from his otherwise stellar resume, having lost to Nadal in last year's final 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4. Though Federer has been slumping and is not in contention for the grand slam this year (having lost in the semifinals in Australia), he remains the world's best all around player. The reigning Wimbledon and U.S. Open Champion, Federer is once again contending for the one title that has kept him from indelibly writing his name in register of tennis immortality as the "best player to ever play the game".

But he'll have to beat Rafael Nadal to do it. Rafa, the three time French Open Champion, has never lost lost a match on the venerable terre battue of Roland Garros. Moreover, he has steamrolled the competition on his way to this year's final, never surrendering so much as a set. Having lost only one match on clay since April 2005, many now consider Nadal the greatest clay courter ever.

However, that one loss is Federer's ray of hope. Last year in Hamburg, Federer managed to finally beat Nadal on clay. Still, Nadal was uncharacteristically not at his best in that match, nor was it a grand slam final. There is little doubt that Nadal will be in exceptional form tomorrow, and Federer has looked vunerable of late. Barring an injury to Nadal in the future, this may well be Federer's best remaining chance to win the French.

If Federer can somehow manage to beat Nadal on Sunday, he will most deservedly be hailed by many as the "best player ever". All he has to do is slay the dragon.

The Stage is Set Once Again

On the eve of the mens French Open Final, the tennis world is anxiously awaiting a rematch for the ages. The world's best all-around player, Roger Federer, will again meet the world's best clay courter, Rafael Nadal, in the championship match. Once again Federer enters holding the Wimbledon, Australian, and U.S. Open crowns. Once again Rafa has dominated the clay court season. And once again, it's about history.

A year ago I wrote about the significance of the potential Grand Slam. Last year Federer fell short in that pursuit, losing to Nadal 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4) in the French Open final. Unperturbed, Federer won Wimbledon handily just a few weeks later. And after a solid hard court season, he won the U.S. Open as well.

As Federer has continued to dominate virtually everyone on the planet, the jungle drum of the sporting world has intensified in asking the ever-present question: Is Roger Federer the best player to ever play the game of tennis?

A great many people say yes. They say Federer is to tennis what Michael Jordan was to basketball or Tiger Woods is to golf. They say he can hit every shot in the book: a devastating forehand, stunningly versatile backhand, precise serve, crisp volleys, great touch, and infinite variety. He is graceful, fast, inventive, and dominant.

Further bolstering this argument is Federer's growing resume, most notably: 10 Grand Slam titles, 48 total singles titles, a 41 match win streak, ending the three previous years atop the rankings, and the most consecutive weeks ranked Number 1 ever (176 and counting).

But the French Open title has eluded Federer thus far. Twice in the past two years he has been defeated by Nadal at Roland Garros. Beginning at the 2005 French Open, the muscular Mallorcan left-hander has been simply unstoppable on clay, going unbeaten on the gritty, crushed red brick for almost three years while compiling an 81 match win streak.

Solidifying his Number 2 ranking, Rafa followed up last year's French Open title by making an improbable run to the Wimbledon final less than a month later. Nadal was playing so well that some thought that the Number 1 ranking might be up for grabs at the US Open. But he failed to win a tournament during the summer hard court season; meanwhile Federer cruised to the title in New York.

In the mind of the popular consciousness, it was then taken as fact that Roger Federer could beat anyone in the world on any surface except for Rafael Nadal on clay. After Federer slumped in the early going this year (he uncharacteristically lost four times without winning a tournament) and Nadal once again ruled the clay, few would have given Federer much of a shot at winning the French Open title. But on May 20th, Federer beat Nadal for the first time on clay in the Hamburg final; giving new hope to the Grand Slam dream.

There is little doubt that Federer is one of the greatest champions in the history of tennis. A French Open title would give him the career Grand Slam that eluded all-time greats Pete Sampras and John McEnroe. This French Open would give him all four Grand Slams at once--and open the door to the true calendar year Gran Slam. Should he win the French Open tomorrow, the sporting world will almost undoubtedly anoint him the "best ever".