Start of Something?

Roger Federer has finally defeated Nadal on clay. He's done it before but it just seems like a decade ago Federer was dominating the tennis circuit and hoisting a new trophy every other week.

The Swiss star won the Madrid Open by posting a 6-4, 6-4 score over rival Nadal. I've been reading this was a stunning victory and it seemed out of the blue that Federer ended up the winning side. Am I wrong but isn't Roger still ranked ummmm, like 2nd in the world?! I guess people are really starting to write off Federer since there are so many young guns out there (Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic). Why are you going to write off a guy who still finds a way to get himself to the finals but ends up taking home a runner-up cheque. Yes, he's being defeated by Nadal in the finals but this isn't a number 1 seed playing a number 319 in the world. This is 1 versus 2.

Why is Hilary Swank giving out keys?

I am a little disappointed in the writers around the internet, I'm looking straight at you ESPN.com and Yahoo!. These writers seem to think a few bad tournaments and a couple of finals losses is the end of Roger. I understand Federer is not going to dominate the circuit like he once did but I still believe Federer has 1-3 more majors in him before his career is finished.

His ability to take control on grass and also on hard courts, which make up 75% of the majors, gives him a great chance to take over Pistol Pete's position at the top.

For all you haters out there, he's still ranked #2 in the world so show him some respect. Until he starts losing in the 1st/2nd round consistently, lay off the he's washed up stories. He isn't going to win 15 titles, including 3 majors, in a year but isn't winning one major a year an accomplishment in itself?