guest column 2: courtesy John Lorenz. Australian Open '08 Recap: Watching Women's Tennis Is Sexist Only When the Players Are Hot
For Americans, the tennis season culminates with the US Open. Of course, I say this as if any Americans still watch tennis, which is, of course, fallacious. (By the way, fallacious is the most unintentionally funny word in the English language. If you don't know why, then you must not enjoy the art of the double entendre as I do.) As the calendar progresses, the American tennis fan becomes more interested, reseting after the Open. There aren't rises and falls - it's all rise. And I don't mean the American fan in the generic sense - I refer to myself, as I am the last one left. This is more strange quirk than by planning. Obviously, the US Open is the most fun and our "hometown" tournament. Working backwards along the calendar, Wimbledon is probably of next greatest importance, despite being the least fun, probably just because Americans have dominated this one for about 25 years post-Borg to Federer. Way to go Johnny Mac. And there was a time when NBC made Breakfast at Wimbledon a big event. Although, ever since they fired Bud Collins, NBC should have their rights to air tennis revoked. Despite being our least successful tournament, by a wide margin, the French is after Wimbledon in importance by default simply because even hardcore fan don't watch tennis at 3 AM. Sorry, Australia, you have an awesome country, but nobody in this country cares.
Now the Australian Open has probably survived as a major only by emulating the US Open in format and style, and thus is actually the 2nd most fun tournament despite the fact that nobody watches it. If you did watch it (like me), you would have seen three of the most preternaturally hot women on the face of the planet make the semifinals of the women's draw in some kind of tennis hotness supernova explosion. It's winter here in America, but it's summer in Australia. It's hot and muggy and I swear it looks the Australian Open has a professional to mist down the women during change overs much like during a swimsuit photo session for a now, unfortunately irrelevant, certain sports mag. The thing about hot women playing tennis - they glisten. It's almost too much to watch when combined with the skimpy outfits designed to give "freedom of motion." Everyone wins with a Sharapova/Ivanovic final, but frankly I was rooting for Hantuchova. Daniella Hantuchova is kind of the forgotten hotness of the women's tour. She rose to prominence in between Kournikova and Sharapova, but quickly fell out due to the fact she cried before losing matches... a lot... like a lot a lot... like every time she missed a shot. It's nice to see her back in the top 10. If you saw the first set against Ivanovic, it was a revelation. She could win a grand slam. But apparently she still has a mental demon or two to overcome, which is unfortunate because that first set against Ivanovic was Federer-like - spins and angles to go with power. And also, she could quite possibly be the hottest of the Sharapova/Ivanovic/Hantuchova triumvirate of hotness, as women's tennis shall from henceforth be referred to as.
And before you judge me, I've been watching women's tennis a long time. I've rooted for Lindsay Davenport titles and watched a few Jana Novatna meltdowns. I've seen Steffi Graf win... a lot. I've seen Hingis win and then not win, then retire and then come back, and then be accused of doing cocaine during Wimbledon. I've seen Aranxta-Sanchez Vicario embarrass some people on clay. I've seen Conchita Martinez win using nothing but a lob, and been entertained to no end. I've laughed uproariously at the umpires declaring "Advantage Schett!" during a Barbara Schett match. ("Advantage Schett" should really be an album title or band name.) At no point have the champions been this hot. I've waited a long time for this and I will not have it taken away. And props to Ivanovic for waiting to be 19 before making a grand slam final. Watching Wimbledon in 2004 (Sharapova's first title, then 16) was fun, but you shouldn't have to feel dirty for watching tennis.
As for the men's side, they had a match between Hewitt and Bagdatis end at 4:30 in the morning, which just after noon the previous day here. Saturday morning tennis is awesome. Only the crazies and diehards are around at 4:30 - and the stadium was still almost full. From a crowd standpoint, this was probably the most fun match since Rafter/Ivanesivic played for a Wimbledon title on a Monday due to rain back in ought-one. Also, Blake had a good run. Federer got pushed by a Serbian and won only to get basted by another. Bonnie Ford (who writes tennis for ESPN.com along with Greg Garber) had a really good article about this, which basically just said this was bound to happen eventually. It's shocking, but I can't really add more to it. Nadal lost to one Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who, if you had seen him play before, you can't totally surprised he won. He made a run kind of deep at Wimbledon last year. He can really smash you off the court. I give Djokovic a 70% against him - shockingly low for the world #3 vs. world #38. Tsonga has had injuries, and probably would have been the best of the promising young French (Gasquet, Monfils, etc.) if not for them.
Anyway, I got through a tennis article without taking a potshot at Mary Carillo. I must be growing as a person. So to everyone who reads this blog and doesn't care about tennis, I say there is a women's final on tonight! Watch, or regret it forever...
Now the Australian Open has probably survived as a major only by emulating the US Open in format and style, and thus is actually the 2nd most fun tournament despite the fact that nobody watches it. If you did watch it (like me), you would have seen three of the most preternaturally hot women on the face of the planet make the semifinals of the women's draw in some kind of tennis hotness supernova explosion. It's winter here in America, but it's summer in Australia. It's hot and muggy and I swear it looks the Australian Open has a professional to mist down the women during change overs much like during a swimsuit photo session for a now, unfortunately irrelevant, certain sports mag. The thing about hot women playing tennis - they glisten. It's almost too much to watch when combined with the skimpy outfits designed to give "freedom of motion." Everyone wins with a Sharapova/Ivanovic final, but frankly I was rooting for Hantuchova. Daniella Hantuchova is kind of the forgotten hotness of the women's tour. She rose to prominence in between Kournikova and Sharapova, but quickly fell out due to the fact she cried before losing matches... a lot... like a lot a lot... like every time she missed a shot. It's nice to see her back in the top 10. If you saw the first set against Ivanovic, it was a revelation. She could win a grand slam. But apparently she still has a mental demon or two to overcome, which is unfortunate because that first set against Ivanovic was Federer-like - spins and angles to go with power. And also, she could quite possibly be the hottest of the Sharapova/Ivanovic/Hantuchova triumvirate of hotness, as women's tennis shall from henceforth be referred to as.
And before you judge me, I've been watching women's tennis a long time. I've rooted for Lindsay Davenport titles and watched a few Jana Novatna meltdowns. I've seen Steffi Graf win... a lot. I've seen Hingis win and then not win, then retire and then come back, and then be accused of doing cocaine during Wimbledon. I've seen Aranxta-Sanchez Vicario embarrass some people on clay. I've seen Conchita Martinez win using nothing but a lob, and been entertained to no end. I've laughed uproariously at the umpires declaring "Advantage Schett!" during a Barbara Schett match. ("Advantage Schett" should really be an album title or band name.) At no point have the champions been this hot. I've waited a long time for this and I will not have it taken away. And props to Ivanovic for waiting to be 19 before making a grand slam final. Watching Wimbledon in 2004 (Sharapova's first title, then 16) was fun, but you shouldn't have to feel dirty for watching tennis.
As for the men's side, they had a match between Hewitt and Bagdatis end at 4:30 in the morning, which just after noon the previous day here. Saturday morning tennis is awesome. Only the crazies and diehards are around at 4:30 - and the stadium was still almost full. From a crowd standpoint, this was probably the most fun match since Rafter/Ivanesivic played for a Wimbledon title on a Monday due to rain back in ought-one. Also, Blake had a good run. Federer got pushed by a Serbian and won only to get basted by another. Bonnie Ford (who writes tennis for ESPN.com along with Greg Garber) had a really good article about this, which basically just said this was bound to happen eventually. It's shocking, but I can't really add more to it. Nadal lost to one Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who, if you had seen him play before, you can't totally surprised he won. He made a run kind of deep at Wimbledon last year. He can really smash you off the court. I give Djokovic a 70% against him - shockingly low for the world #3 vs. world #38. Tsonga has had injuries, and probably would have been the best of the promising young French (Gasquet, Monfils, etc.) if not for them.
Anyway, I got through a tennis article without taking a potshot at Mary Carillo. I must be growing as a person. So to everyone who reads this blog and doesn't care about tennis, I say there is a women's final on tonight! Watch, or regret it forever...
posted by mike at 3:06 PM
2 Comments:
So I watched some of the Ivanovic/Dani semi (as well as some of the Sharapova/Jankovic) and I completely agree with your assessment of Hantuchova; she's talented, but emotionally unstable.
Some comments...
If Jelena wins a major this year, that will be my sports highlight for the year.
Is Djokovic over Federer really a shock? If Federer were to go down to someone on a non-clay surface, wouldn't we all go to the bank and bet on Djokovic to be the guy to do it? Obviously any Federer loss is newsworthy, but you had to figure that Novak would do it eventually. He's that good.
So here are some open questions:
1) Federer ever in a French? He's got what, three good chances left, right?
2) Novak: more or less than 2 majors?
3) Is there something wrong with Andy Roddick's game or is he the victim of bad luck and motivated opponents?
4) Can James Blake realistically win a major? I say noooo.
I predict an injury plagued year for Jelena. I've got not against her, but she has played nearly 100 matches last year. It's only January and she's already having problems. That can't be good.
In response to your open questions...
1) Federer is 26 now... 27 by the end of the year. I think a lot. People think he may already be slowing down, but he's never had a bad injury and could conceivably play 6-7 more years. A long time for a tennis player, but he's talked about playing into his early 30's. I say he wins 4 more Wimbledons, 3 US Opens, 2 Australians, and 1 French. He's still the 2nd best clay court player in the world - and he is an injured or upset Rafael Nadal (more likely injured, there was talk about him missing extended time each of the last two years) from being the favorite at the French.
2) Over. I'm guessing 4-5 on the career unless there is some flame out. Even Marat Safin has 2. He should win tonight and at 20, he has plenty of time.
3) I think his ranking dropped a few spots because a bunch of players caught up to him. His result from the 2nd half of last year aren't bad, he's just running into good players in the quarters instead of the semi's or finals. That's what happens when your rankings slips from 3 to 6. We won't know if Australia is an isolated incident or not after the clay court season.
4) No, Blake cannot win a major. Perhaps if he had been around in the weird power vacuum years between about 2000-2003 when we had some weird people making finals... Ranier Schutler, Thomas Johansson... Todd Martin even made it to a US Open final in '99. A semi's or even a final should be in reach - he's made it the quarters several times by now - but he's going to have to beat someone when he gets there. And he's only got 2-3 more years on the tour. This is probably his last season to try to make big impact at 28ish.
Post a Comment
<< Home