Comments on: Roger Federer and the mystery of genius

By: Poli

Poli — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:36:03 +0000

Loved this line from your article:

“His opponents were not so much adversaries as co-conspirators, present only because the rules required two players.”

By: Poli

Poli — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:13:08 +0000

Wow, I feel stupid about asking in an earlier blog entry whether David Foster Wallace is good or not. Turns out, I’ve already read some of his pieces a few years before.

Glad you picked Jesus Fed. You have, as Roger would say, a FANTASTIC taste.

By: jessicazafra

jessicazafra — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:51:18 +0000

Ha! My column has not been a total waste of time. Thanks.

By: mcmorco

mcmorco — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:26:42 +0000

Oh and may I just say that I posted a message on Roger’s Facebook page immediately after his loss in London urging him to take on a coach. I don’t care if it sounds delusional, but I feel like Roger listened to me. Paul Annacone is a fantastic choice, don’t you agree?

By: mcmorco

mcmorco — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:24:56 +0000

Hi Jessica, I really only wanted to say how BIG a fan I am of Roger Federer. But then I realized that your Twisted columns on tennis were what turned me on to the game. I remembered, too, that it was your column that made me start reading serious literature, even when I was alone in the pursuit and ill-equipped at the time. (I was a freshman in high school and a great fan of TODAY; I miss it to this day.)

So my two devotions in life, literature and tennis (Roger Federer, in particular), I owe to you. It must be awesome and daunting for you to realize such influence on other people. But I’m sure that, like me, they can’t thank you enough for leading them to the matchless experience of the sublime.