Remember a few weeks ago, when Tiger Woods won the U.S. Golf Open on what turned out to be a bum knee? Even if you didn't watch his dramatic victory, you surely heard lots about it, given the American sports media's obsession with a relatively narrow set of topics. If it's not Woods, it's A-Rod. Or Brett Favre.
Meanwhile, one of sport's truly historic and memorable events took place yesterday. But just one day later, there's no mention of it on ESPN's homepage, only a thumbnail image and link halfway down the page on FoxSports, and no coverage of it on Yahoo!Sports.
I understand that I am in the minority. I am among those who love tennis. I follow it closely and regularly lament how extensively it is overlooked in the mainstream sports media. It matters little to me that neither Roger Federer nor Rafael Nadal are not from the United States. They are exquisite athletes, unquestionably among the greats of all time who are now both in the prime of their careers.
Sunday's Wimbledon final, won by Nadal 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7 in a record 4 hours and 48 minutes, was equal parts drama and athletic excellence. There are already many accounts that explain the historic significance of the match. While I'm not yet sure it is the greatest tennis match I have ever seen, it is certainly on the short list. Even better, both Federer and Nadal are a joy to watch and a pleasure to root for.Yet today's sports news is all about the same old stories. Will Brett Favre, ever the narcissist, return to the NFL? Did A-Rod sleep with Madonna? These stories will sell papers and "move the needle," of course. But in a sports culture so often clouded by tales of indiscretion and impropriety, professional tennis delivered a contest of unparalleled drama and skill. Regrettably, too few seem to have taken notice.
3 comments:
I only saw the fourth set tiebreaker and the fifth set ... though I suppose I should hesitate to use the word "only" there. There was quite a lot to see in that "only." It was absolutely wonderful to watch and I also wish it would get more attention instead of many of the silly, hyped-up stories that do. I suppose, given how good last year's men's Wimbledon final was, that it's fitting that Federer and Nadal each got to win one of them, in essence making it a draw (as much as the Federer fan inside me hates to say that). Still, if we're going to talk about being narcissistic (and, again, I'm saying this as a big fan of Federer), don't we have to include Roger there, with that gold RF patch he had on his sweater?
I missed the 2nd and 3rd sets. The 4th set tiebreak was amazing. And I was in disbelief that the quality of the 5th set was so high.
I agree that the "RF" stuff is a bit much. I saw the hats at the French Open and didn't like them much. I know Federer has avoided many of the trappings of fame, but it takes a special kind of ego to wear your own initials. Maybe he was just a really big fan of Laverne De Fazio?
LOL ... The scary thing is that Federer was 2 years old when Laverne and Shirley was went off the air ... but I'm all for a new version with Nadal as Shirley and Federer as Laverne (or, alternatively, as Lenny and Squiggy, respectively). Just imagine highlights of their Wimbledon match playing to a music bed of "And do it our way, yes our way/Make all our dreams come true/For me and you ..."
BTW, speaking of Federer's special kind of ego, is anyone else bothered by those Gilette ads with Federer, Tiger Woods, and Thierry Henry in which Federer teases Tiger at the end? It seems like there are implicit race characterizations (probably unintentional and likely emanating from unconscious cultural scripts) going on there with the black guy being the butt of the white guy's joke. By age, for instance, Tiger (who is the oldest of the three) should be picking on the "kid" Federer.
Post a Comment