Romantikere versus naturalister
De beste skribentene er etter min mening dem som klarer å si noe helt nytt om en sak mange har sagt noe om tidligere. Federers seier i French Open er en slik ting som mange har ment noe om den siste uka. (Jeg lover at dette er siste post om den finalen.)
Peter Bodo har også ytret seg, selvfølgelig. Denne artikkelen har for mange høydepunkter til at jeg gidder nevne dem her. Bodo setter ord på forskjellen mellom Nadal og Federer sine fans, hvorfor noen heier med den ene og noen med den andre. Bodo kaller dem naturalister (Nadals fans) og romantikere (Federers).
Her er sitatene, mine uthevinger:
One of the reasons Nadal is so popular with youngsters is that he unconsciously sends the message that he is very of the moment, very now – that he’s some sort of evolutionary step forward, something tennis has not seen before and for which it has no answer. Nadal literally begs you to make all those arguments about how this isn’t your father’s game of tennis anymore, about how somehow tennis has gone to a mythical «next level» which may not exist and maybe never did – at least not in so conspicuous, quickly attained way.
Federer is light on his feet, blessed with remarkable feel, and he possesses stores of stamina and determination that are concealed rather than advertised. Nobody looks at him and thinks «next generation,» or «specimen.» Guys who play, look, and even talk like Federer aren’t supposed to have a shot in this game anymore, and the fact that they do (or that he does, proving that at least in theory the possibility exists) is one of the things that makes tennis worth watching and following. The game was supposed to leave his kind behind, yet here is Federer, not only stubbornly clinging to existence, but actually outlasting and proving himself more durable than the specimens.