[Rogi] The force behind the serve .....and …

看板Federer作者hlcho (You moved me to tears..)時間20年前 (2006/01/31 16:19)推噓10(10推 0噓 5→)

留言15則, 11人參與討論串1/1

以下文章轉錄自澳洲Sydney Morning Herald 後面有中文翻譯,提供給需要的人參考參考.....^^||| http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-force-behind-the-serve-133-and-the-tears/2006/01/30/1138590440557.html January 31, 2006 He won the battle, not just against the underdog ... and then the dam burst, writes David Williamson. THE vast world audience who watched the men's final of the Australian tennis open on Sunday night saw an extraordinary spectacle. One of the all-time greats, possibly the greatest player ever, Roger Federer, convincingly and coolly won the title, then broke down and cried. It was a moving and endearing moment. But what caused it? Men would usually rather admit to an erectile problem than cry in public. Sure, Malcolm Fraser had tears in his eyes when he was defeated by Bob Hawke in 1983, but that was a defeat, not a victory. And Hawke cried openly at the spectacle of Tiananmen Square. Some cynics claimed Hawke was crying in sheer wonder at the depth of his own compassion, but I'm prepared to believe that he was genuinely moved. But again that's not tears in response to a victory. Women's tears don't draw the same surprise or disapproval as men's tears, and men's comparative stoicism has been long put down to social conditioning. Recent brain imaging studies cast doubt on this. The feeling and compassion centres of women's brains are far more active than men's. The male inability to cry seems to also have a structural and biological basis in the brain. So what made Federer defy those social and biological restraints and show us his vulnerability? It could be any number of reasons. Pete Sampras cried on court in a match with Jim Courier and it was not known until afterwards that he'd just found out his coach had been diagnosed with cancer, so any explanation has to be speculative, but here goes. Federer, on court, usually convinces us he has no emotions at all. He glides gracefully around the court so casually that it seems as if he's somehow in command of time itself, and can slow it down at will. It's just all too easy. In sport, whose essence is the drama of not knowing outcomes, predictability is irritating, especially to sports journalists whose pay packet depends on new scenarios. So it's not hard to understand why they seize on every close contest to try to proclaim that the Federer era is over. While they don't hate Federer, they hate the inevitability that comes as a result of his massive talent. which they try to undermine by highlighting every falter and stumble. It has to eat away at Federer's inner confidence and sense of fairness. But Federer should take heart. He's not alone. Our greatest racehorse, Phar Lap, was shot at in an attempt to kill him because he just kept winning. Playwrights who were contemporaries of Shakespeare delighted in vicious attacks which accused him of being a country bumpkin whose style of writing was stuffed with vapid similies and far-fetched metaphors. The greatest wicketkeeper/batsman who ever played cricket, Adam Gilchrist, had a recent bad run, and the chorus to get rid of him rose to shrill heights. His century in the one-day match on Sunday seems to suggest his talent has not totally evaporated. It's an iron law of achievement that when one rises too far above the competition the slings and arrows start, and with it the merciless rooting for the underdog. And what an underdog Marcos Baghdatis turned out to be. Mercurial, voluble and likeable, and as flamboyant as Federer is controlled. With a beautiful young model as his companion, and confessing that spending time with her in bed was a strategy to keep him from stressing out, he was a publicists' dream. Ranked below 50 and coming from nowhere, Baghdatis was the darling of the tennis world after his heroic five-set win from behind over David Nalbandian. Federer could surely sense that the vast majority of the world was hoping that Baghdatis would win. From their point of view the new kid on the block had arrived at last, and while Federer could rationally accept that Baghdatis was the new darling of the tennis world, at an emotional level it must have taken its toll. From his point of view he had more than earned his eminence. Why was there such a rabid frenzy of hope that he would be humiliated? I think that part of the reason Federer broke down was an attempt to show us all that to him his victories are not at all inevitable. That being on top of the pile is in some ways the most vulnerable position it's possible to have. That it's not easy. That from his point of view every match is a contest. As in any sport, confidence and belief are just as essential as talent, and every time Federer plays it's possible that the emotions, which we now know are patently there under the surface, might derail him. We saw it happen at the start of the match. He willed himself brilliantly back into the game, but he knows that if he loses, the baying hounds are out there ready to proclaim an era is over. And that if his confidence is shaken enough, it might well be. To intensify his emotion the man handing him the trophy was Rod Laver, perhaps the greatest tennis player ever. If any man was able to understand the very real loneliness at the top, it was Rocket Rod. Federer broke down because the trophy, handed to him by his all-time idol, meant more to him that any of us thought it could. Every new trophy is another Everest he has to climb. Every time he comes to centre court now he has to do battle with the world's huge expectations and with their hope that the underdog will win. Federer showed us that he's vulnerable, that victory matters very much for him, and that it's very hard work. That was what moved us. The playwright David Williamson savoured the moment. 中文試譯: 「他贏得了比賽，擊敗的不只是挑戰者…，然後淚水決堤。」David Williamson 寫道。上週日，全世界觀賞澳網男單決賽的廣大觀眾目睹了意義非凡的一幕。有史以來最頂尖的選手之一，可能是最偉大的一位，羅傑．費德勒，以冷靜而有說服力的球技，贏得冠軍頭銜，然後崩潰哭泣。這是個讓人感動而迷醉的一刻。只是，是什麼讓他哭了？男人通常寧願承認性功能問題，也不願在眾目睽睽下哭泣。是啊，1983年，Malcolm Fraser被Bob Hawke擊敗時，也曾淚眼婆娑；但那是一項失敗，不是一場勝利。而Hawke也曾為天安門廣場的場景公開哭泣。一些好冷嘲熱諷的人說，他哭只是因為對自己憐憫之心的深度感到吃驚。女性腦部的感覺及憐憫之情的中心遠比男性來得活躍。男人不擅哭泣也似乎在腦中有其構造上及生物上的理由。所以，是什麼讓Federer違反那些社會及生物上的限制，向我們表露他的脆弱？理由可能多得數不清。 Pete Samprasy在與Jim Courier對戰時，在球場上哭了起來，直到之後我們才知道，他是得知了教練被診斷出癌症。所以任何解釋都只是臆測，但仍不能免俗。球場上的Federer，常讓我們相信，他一點情緒也沒有。他總是優雅地在場上往來游移，看來簡直就好似他是時間的主宰，可以隨意讓時間慢下來。簡直太輕鬆寫意了。就體育活動而言，它的本質是無法得知結果的戲劇性；可預知性會教人氣惱，特別是對體育記者靠的是新的局面來吃飯。所以，不難理解，何以他們在每次勢均力敵的賽事裡，抓住機會就要宣稱Federer的時代結束了。他們是不討厭Federer，他們討厭的是，由於他天才橫溢所造成的必然性，而這也是他們借由突顯每次失足及不穩的表現來努力破壞的事情。這必定一點點侵蝕著 Federer內在的信心與公平感。但Federer該鼓起信心及勇氣。他並不孤單。我們最偉大的賽馬，Phar Lap，遭人蓄意射殺，因為他贏個不停。當莎士比亞因其充滿白話的明諭及隱晦的隱喻的寫作風格而被貶為鄉巴佬時，同時期的劇作家都為這惡意攻擊感到欣喜。最偉大的板球捕手及打擊手，Adam Gilchrist，近來表現不佳，要求將他剔除的聲浪喊得震天價響。週日他在一日賽事裡的一百分表現說明他的天賦尚未完全消逝。功成名就的鐵則是︰當一個人上升到遠在競爭對手之上時，緊接而來的就是批評的冷箭，及與之相伴的挑戰者毫不留情的進犯。而Marcos Baghdatis則成了好一個挑戰者。活潑、健談、討喜，及當他壓著Federer打時的讓人目眩神馳。有著年輕貌美的模特兒相伴，還坦承與她同床共枕，是他釋放壓力的策略；他是宣傳公關的夢幻人物。排名50名之外，且冠軍頭銜一無斬獲，Baghdatis在取得與David Nalbandian鏖戰五盤英雄式的勝利之後，他已成了網球世界的寵兒。 Federer肯定可以意識到多數的人希望Baghdatis獲勝。從他們的觀點，終於來了個新人；在Federer能理性地接受，網球世界有了Baghdatis這個新寵兒的同時，這世界在感情上必定也有所損失。從他的觀點，他得到的不只贏得崇高的地位而已。為何會有如此強烈的渴望，想見到他被羞辱？我想，Federer情緒崩潰的部分原因是，他想向大家表示，對他而言，他的勝利並非全都是必然；成為世界第一，在某些方面來說，可能也是處在最脆弱的位置；得來並不容易；從他的觀點來看，每場比賽都是一場保衛戰。如同任何一項運動，信心與信念，與天賦一樣都是不可或缺；現在我們知道藏在Federer表面下的豐沛的情緒，而每當他上場時，那可能將他毀了。我們看到這出現在決賽開打之後不久。雖然漂亮地將自己專注回比賽上，但他知道，要是輸了，好吠的犬類已就位來宣稱一個時代的結束。要是他的信心有所不足，這很有可能成真。親手將獎盃交給他的是Rod Laver--大概是有史以來最偉大的網球選手，這使他情緒更加激動。如果有任何人能了解站在頂端的那種真正的孤寂，那便是Rocket Rod了。 Federer情緒崩潰，乃因獎盃是由他永遠的偶像授與他，這對他的意義比我們任何一位能想像的更為重大。現在，每當他來到中央球場，他都得與全世界廣大的期許，和這些等著看挑戰者獲勝的心態爭戰。 Federer向我們表露，他是脆弱的；他的勝利對他意義重大；那是件艱鉅的任務。這就是感動我們的地方。筆者David Williamson回味這個時刻。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.244.18.110