What does Roger Federer have left in the tank?

The US Open is in full swing, and once again, Roger Federer faces a make-or-break tournament, as the media increasingly believes that his time on center stage is up. We've been here before. Two years ago, at this exact same time, Federer looked to be in serious trouble; he had not won a major all year, had been crushed by Rafael Nadal in the French Open final, he had been taken down on his favorite surface, grass, in that epic Wimbledon final, and he was increasingly losing in the early rounds in the lesser tournaments . The pundits said that Nadal, and maybe even Novak Djokovich and Andy Murray, had overtaken Federer forever. Instead, Federer handily won his fifth US Open in a row and revived his career, eventually breaking the record for most Grand Slam titles ever won by one man.

That's not to say that we'll see the same thing happen again. There are some differences between 2008 and 2010. For one, Federer is two years older now, and since tennis players peak at a notoriously young age, it can legitimately be argued that Federer is now past his prime, which would not have been true two years ago. Secondly, in 2008, when it came to the majors, Federer only lost to the best. He lost to Nadal twice and #3 Novak Djokovich once. This year, he has lost to someone he had never previously lost to before, Robin Soderling, and someone who was not even a top-20 player at the time, Tomas Berdych. That does not bode well. Those losses have stripped from Federer the psychological edge he held over most opponents at all the major championships, which is something that cannot be underestimated.

Another difference between 2008 pre-US Open and 2010 pre-US Open, this one positive, is the momentum that Federer and Nadal had entering the event. In 2008 Nadal was at his highest point and Federer was at his lowest. Nadal looked like a shoo-in champion after winning the last two majors and performing well in the US Open Series. This year, Nadal entered in somewhat of a summer swoon and Federer entered riding high after two finals appearances in a row at minor tournaments and one tournament victory. Since Nadal always picks it up in the majors, I do not expect his recent downturn to last, but I think Federer's upturn will.

Before delving into Federer's future, the first question that must be answered is how well he will play in the US Open (and before delving into that I have to admit that I'm a big Federer fan). How well he does at this tournament, I believe, will tell a lot about what the rest of Federer's career holds for him. If he loses early (quarterfinals or before), I believe that he will fade fast and won't remain much of a factor for long. On the other hand, if he wins the whole thing, I think he's here to stay and will be competing with Nadal in major finals for a long while.

So how do I think he'll do? I still think Federer is much better than Djokovich, his presumed semifinal opponent, and I don't see him losing to Novak at this tournament. Given his current streak of good play, both pre-US Open and during it, I also don't see him losing to his next two presumed opponents (as of the writing of this blog post) Jurgen Melzer and Robin Soderling (who is the biggest threat here). I also don't see him losing to any other random opponent who crops up. However, I don't think Federer is better than Nadal, nor will he ever be again, therefore I think that he'll lose to Nadal in a hard-fought, four to five set final.

I think my prediction for Federer's US Open sums up my prediction for the rest of Federer's career as well. He'll remain the second best player in the world for a while- up to 2014 even; but he'll never again be the best. He might win another major if Nadal loses in the earlier rounds or if he pulls off the finals upset over Nadal, but it won't happen very often. However, given what he's already accomplished in his career, what's wrong with that?


So did I miss anything? Did I misrepresent some issue? Even though i know this is more of an esoteric topic to you all than my other posts, comments would be appreciated.

The "Ground Zero" mosque and freedom of religion

There has recently been some furor over a proposed interfaith mosque, tentatively named the Cordoba House, that is being built near where the World Trade Center once stood (if you're unclear exactly what I'm talking about, I suggest you click the link). This mosque has been demonized as insensitive because some feel that it would be celebrating the religion that caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people. These people say that the mosque would be like a victory flag for al-Qaeda, planted on the ashes of those they murdered. This is, of course, not true, for several reasons.

First of all, the name that the building is most often referred to as- the "Ground Zero mosque", has led many to believe that it is situated right next to or maybe even on top of the former World Trade Center. This is false. The proposed mosque/community center would be a full two blocks away from Ground Zero. In New York, two blocks is like twenty miles because of the density of the city. There are, in fact, quite a few mosques or Muslim prayer areas already within two blocks of Ground Zero, including one in the building that would need to be demolished for the Cordoba House to be built. Are all of these mosques monuments to terrorism also? If the Cordoba House isn't allowed to be built, why should all these other mosques be allowed to exist?

Secondly, the claim that this mosque would be akin to an al-Qaeda victory flag is completely untrue, because the whole idea of the mosque/community center is as a bulwark against jihadist Islam. The proposed iman (preacher) of the mosque, Faisal Abdul Rauf, is well known for his preachings condemning the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general. Rather than encouraging terrorism, this mosque would help prevent it.

But the most important reason that the proposed mosque should be allowed to be built is because it would send a message to the rest of the world. America is unique in that it's a nation founded not on ethnicity but on ideals. Two of the most important of these ideals are freedom of religion and freedom of speech. These two principles have been abused numerous times in the past, but many had believed that America had finally turned a corner on its ugly history and was finally ready to live up to the ethos on which it was founded. Support and understanding for the construction of the Cordoba House would have been the ultimate symbol of this new tolerance and egalitarianism. We had a chance to show the terrorists that no matter what they did, no matter how badly they wounded us, they could never touch that which is at the core of our country: freedom. And we blew it. We showed that we have not turned the corner from the segregation and religious intolerance of years past. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it best: "We do not honor [the 9/11 victims'] lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting." Somewhere, Osama Bin Laden is laughing and watching us do his job for him- radicalizing more Muslims against the US. If we had accepted and supported this mosque, it would have sent a powerful signal to Muslims the world over, that we are not at war with Islam and rather that we respect it as a religion. Instead, we now could see an increase in homegrown terrorism as Muslims see this debate as the true face of America, and ignore the innumerable good things about the country. Rather than waging multiple wars in foreign countries, perhaps the best way to hold back terrorism in America is by taking a long, hard look at our country and what it stands for.

So did I misrepresent the issue? Did I overlook something? Did I make any factual errors? Comments would be appreciated.

College search

Senior year is fast approaching, which means the questions about college have only intensified, to the point where the first question I am asked by any adult I meet is "So which college are you going to?" To the chagrin of most of these people, I don't have an answer to this question (well, not really). Apparently, because I haven't decided what college I'm going to go to yet, I am destined to live a sad, destitute life. What I don't understand is how I'm supposed to already know what college I want to go to when there are over 4,000 colleges in America, the vast majority of which I've never even heard of.

Even if you know what major you want to pursue in college, which is a big if (how are you supposed to know what we want to do for the rest of our life after just 17 years?), that still doesn't narrow the options down much, because most mainstream majors are available in pretty much every college. Obviously, some colleges are known for being strong in certain majors, but in reality you can pursue almost any major at every college.

If you've decided to go to one of Virginia's lovely in-state public colleges, that narrows down the options quite a bit; especially if you have good enough grades to take out all the crappy in-state schools and narrow it down to the likes of UVA, Virginia Tech, VCU, and William and Mary. I luckily (or maybe not so luckily) have the option to go anywhere in the country for college, meaning that all these in-state schools are just one of many possibilities for me.

I recently visited one college possibility, Georgetown, and it looked nice and all; the campus is pretty stunning, the academics are amazing, and the opportunities for internships are great, but I could say the same thing about a large number of colleges. What really separates a Georgetown from a UVA or a Princeton really? This confusion has left me with the odd situation of evaluating colleges based on their selectivity (Virginia Tech is not selective enough, for example, and Harvard is too selective) rather their merits; because I don't know enough about all these colleges to be able to tell the difference between each one's individual assets and liabilities.

Hopefully I'll figure this thing out before too long. I have high expectations for a college hunting trip I'm going to be taking up Northeast in a couple of weeks. Maybe I'll get an even stronger version of that "I-can-imagine-myself-here vibe" than I got at Georgetown. Or maybe a ray of sunlight will fall on my face and I'll realize "this is the place I have to be", and all these college problems will be solved, and whenever someone asks me "what college are you going to?", I can answer confidently "NYU (or Columbia or Princeton)", instead of stuttering and trying to deflect the question. You can only hope, I guess.

A Change of Pace

Looking back on my blog, I realized that I never really wrote an About Me/Introductory entry to explain what Outspoken is all about, so this post will serve as a very belated explanation post, as well as the start of a new direction for Outspoken.

I started this blog to express my opinions on different issues, mainly political and sports-related. I'm really opinionated so I thought it would be a good idea to have an outlet for my viewpoints. This isn't really a blog about my life. I don't want to make it one because, first of all, I don't really want everyone with an internet connection to be able to know what's going on with my life, and secondly, because I don't think anyone would want to read about the daily minutiae of my life. That said, I do want to try to use things that have happened in my life to illustrate my points and opinions. This is something I haven't really been doing lately but hope to do more of in the future.

When I started this blog my goal was to try to write one entry a week. I have obviously fallen quite a bit behind on that schedule. For a while I was posting just once a month; now I've gotten it up to once every two weeks, but I'm really going to try to get it up to once a week from here on out. One way I plan to do that is by changing the type of blog posts I write from long, well-researched manifestos to shorter, more off-the-top-of-my-head musings. I've probably been writing too much about politics lately and not enough about everyday stuff so that's something I'm also going to try to change, since everyday stuff lends itself to shorter posts anyways.

The other way I plan to increase my production is by having a lot more time to write. For the past five weeks I've either been on vacation, or interning (full time) on weekdays and taking an SAT prep class on weekends (and Friday nights). Before that I had to go through Junior year and all the work that ensued. None of that left much time for writing my blog, although that's not really an excuse for my dismal output. Next week, however, my internship will end, and my SAT prep class has already ended. The only work that's going to be left for the rest of summer is college stuff (visits, essays, etc.), this blog, and doing a little volunteering for Gerry Connolly. In addition, the coming school year is going to be my senior year, which means less work than junior year (I hope). So next week I hope to be back with a more substantive, though not too-substantive, entry.