A Great Wimbledon: Serena, Maria, Federer, Nadal ALL got Ass-Kicked Early

"FAIL!"

I know it's childish. The Internet is such a place for malcontents to happily shout "FAIL" and show embarrassing photos of drunk girls, jackass stunts gone wrong, accidents, etc. etc.

There are millions of hits for any YouTube video of news anchors saying something stupid or somebody falling and getting hurt.

You fell! You failed! Haw haw haw...let's all laugh at somebody who tried.

BUT..

BUT...

In the case of professional tennis, there's nothing quite as satisfying as watching Top Seeds LOSE

ESPECIALLY at WIMBLEDON.

Rolling Stone writer Stephen Rodrick, an obnoxious hipster who makes Dennis Leary seem pleasant, wrote a piece on Serena Williams and smugly spat, "If she doesn't pocket her sixth Wimbledon...check the ground because the world may have spun off its axis..."

For that alone, I'm glad she lost.

Rodrick also insisted, in the opening paragraph, "Who is the most dominant figure in sports today? LeBron James? Michael Phelps? Please. Get that weak sauce out of here. It is Serena Williams. She runs women's tennis like Kim Jong-un runs North Korea..."

Then he gave the obligatory Rolling Stone white-people-are-crappy white-people-steal-from-blacks tilt. You know, the way Rolling Stone's asshole reviewers would always qualify that Janis or Genya or Clapton was "the best white blues singer" or "the best white R&B musician" because they couldn't bring themselves to say it was at all possible for someone in that genre to be good and not be black.

Quoth Rodrick:

"Sharapova is tall, white and blond, and, because of that, makes more money in endorsements than Serena, who is black, beautiful, and built like one of those monster trucks that crushes Volkswagens at sports arenas....The chasm between Serena and the rest of women's tennis is as vast and broad as the space between Ryhan Lochte's ears. Get back to me when LeBron beats Kevin Durant's Oklahoma City Thunder every time for nine years. Serena's dominance has been fueled by not giving a shit what you or anyone else thinks..."

Rodrick could give a shit about whether he comes off as a rabid opinionated caffeinated in-yer-face lunatic. But his girl lost at Wimbledon.

As did Federer.

As did Nadal.

As did Rodrick's much-despised Sharapova, who gets endorsements mostly for girly-type things like perfume and fashion because she's appealing to teenage girls who want to go to Eurotrash parties and live her lifestyle, not Serena's.

And I'm glad they ALL went, because they are ALL boring. They win almost all the time, and it's rarely interesting to watch.

The older tennis players who won a lot, often struggled with their nerves. Navratilova, for example, could be very ragged. She also had a good rival in Chris Evert. They played TENNIS. Serena Williams has a powerful serve that usually blows the opposition away. She admits she's a "klutz" otherwise and not so great at volleys. So who the fuck wants to watch Serena, or Pete Sampras or some other powerful server just smack the ball for ace after ace?

The other thing about these dominant players is that they get smug. So it's nice to see them stalk off the court and sulk. It's disgusting to see them put on fake-humility for a second, and then betray a glint in their eye as they talk about hoping for a Grand Slam, and declaring they're playing better than ever. Nadal had one the French Open yet AGAIN, and everyone was gushing about how he's unbeatable and so therefore, he's the favorite for Wimbledon. And he was soaking it up. And he got booted EARLY...drowned and OUT. Good.

Let's look at somebody ELSE for a change. On the women's side, how about a petite chick from Germany. Some bundle of nerves from Japan or Belgium who can't believe her good luck. Two women who can serve and volley and react to each others' strengths and weaknesses and play a REAL game of tennis, and not just grunt and hit power shots and have every point end within 10 seconds.

Sure, the hot girl never gets near the quarter-finals, and it's a curse to wear a sexy tennis dress, but at least THIS Wimbledon doesn't have SERENA, or MARIA, or some ugly Slavic monster-dyke.

On the men's side, unfortunately, nobody knocked out the acromegaly Serb in the first round, so we'll have to wait and see if he ends up in the finals and screws up Murray and the Brits who want a British champ. But at least...NO NADAL. NO FEDERER!

In any sport...winners who make it look easy, winners who almost never lose...are not amusing. Who was "The Greatest" boxer of all time? Muhammad Ali. And he lost to Frazier. Lost to Norton. Had to come back and beat them a second time. And a third. He didn't have an easy time with Foreman, either, or Shavers or even Henry Cooper.

And that's probably why, when you think of tennis, if you think of it at all, and you think of who a "great" player was...you might say Connors or McEnroe before you think of fucking robots like Borg or Sampras, and why it would be hard to recall a great match from Federer or Nadal because they have no personality.

The sad thing is that these blips of failure do not in any way enhance Nadal, Federer, Maria or Serena, or make them human, because they don't have personalities that make us care. We don't identify with them. Wlad and his brother Vitali may be great, and Lennox Lewis...but who cares? Barry Bonds was a great ballplayer? People have more affection for Yogi Berra. Beckham? Pele made people smile. When the New York Mets were losing, they had more rabid fans than when the New York Yankees were winning.

Winners can be losers...if they are so boring that nobody wants to watch 'em win.