PDA

View Full Version : Kournikova's critics lose sight of her accomplishments


GogoGirl
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:00 PM
64% - not bad.




http://www.trnonline.com/stories/09022002/sports/33761.shtml




Mon, September 2, 2002
Kournikova's critics lose sight of her accomplishments


Stephen C. Smith Sr., Times Record News

COMMENTARY
Anna, Anna, Anna.
What is it about Anna Kournikova that makes some writers cross the line between sports journalist and sleazy tabloid hack? I mean, you can usually find more information about who she's dating this week than you can on how she did in a tournament.
A modern day Helen of Troy, Kournikova is the face (or posterior) that launches a million flashbulbs every time she steps onto a tennis court.
But for someone who seems to be living such a charmed life, she does get her fair share of criticism. Most of it centers on her dubious distinction of having participated in 115 Women's Tennis Association events and never winning one of them.
However, that very statement is deceiving.
Fourteen currently active WTA players, including Kournikova, turned professional in 1995. Coming into this year, they had played 4,304 matches and won 58 percent of them.
As a group, they have amassed 12 Grand Slam titles and 55 regular tour titles.
Ten of the Grand Slams and 25 of the tour titles belong to Serena Williams, the other two Slams belong to Kournikova.
That's right, Kournikova.
She has won two doubles Grand Slams and 15 doubles titles on tour. Besides that, she's actually won 64 percent of her singles matches, which is better than 11 of the 14 players who started with her in 1995.
Shocked? Don't be.
This is the part most of the critics usually leave out when they start to dissect her game.
A look at her career highlights reveals two things - a pretty successful career thus far and a little sexism:
* She's one of only eight players who have beaten both Steffi Graf and Martina Hingis.
* She beat a reigning world No. 1 player before her 17th birthday.
* She's won four consecutive matches against Top-10 players in one tournament.
But her accomplishments are peppered with terms like "glamorous Russian" and "21-year-old Russian beauty."
It makes me wonder what it would take to calm Richard Williams down if his daughter Serena was described as "the curvaceous African-American" or some other demeaning nonsense.
And then there's the other thing.
From what I've seen, a lot of this Anna bashing seems to be about money.
Kournikova makes an additional $15 million a year from endorsement deals with Adidas, Omega and Berlei among others, and despite her struggles in singles tennis, is easily the most recognizable tennis player on the planet.
Due to this, I've seen several less-than-attractive female tennis commentators lament on how bad she is for the game and how she has objectified herself in the process.
That's interesting, too.
I don't remember seeing any scathing criticism of Michael Jordan, Jim Palmer or Roger Craig when they were hawking men's underwear a few years ago. So why is Kournikova catching any for what she does?
Her plight reminds me a lot of Andre Agassi back in the early 1990's when image was everything and not winning wasn't really that big a deal.
Andre shook it off, realized his potential and became a champion. Maybe Anna will, too.
"I think if I didn't think I could improve, I wouldn't be trying," Kournikova said recently. "And I think anybody can improve at anything if they work hard and do the things they have to do."
And even if she never does win a singles title, will it ever occur to anyone that maybe she's just a better doubles player?
Probably not.
Such is the downside of beauty - people expect perfection no matter how difficult it is to attain.
According to Greek legend, Helen of Troy was eventually rescued from her tormentors.
Hopefully, so will Kournikova.
Staff sports writer Stephen C. Smith Sr. can be reached after 4 p.m. at 1-800-627-1646 or (940) 720-3470 or via e-mail at smiths@wtr.com

auntie janie
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:08 PM
Another silly article on Anna. Thes writers always mention her accomplishments but fail to observe how long ago they all took place. For example:

"She beat a reigning world No. 1 player before her 17th birthday."

True! And she has not done it ONCE since then.

There is lots more like this in there but it is too silly to waste time pointing it all out.

Iconoclast
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:22 PM
This, I must say, is a very good piece of writing on Miss Kournikova. A refreshing change to the usual walloping she gets.

Thanks for posting.

apoet29
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:23 PM
I take exception to the "less than attractive female commentators" statement. Since when it is deemed that if a woman criticizes another woman, she is just suffering from jealousy? That is a sexist view of women that men often share when they do not agree with a woman's opinion. Besides, who is this man to judge who is attractive and who is not attractive? Perhaps he should put his picture alongside his article so that his female counterparts can judge his looks.

It infuriates me that women today are still judged by the same old patriarchal standards of beauty, particularly in the world of sports. If a woman dares offer her opinion, she is either jealous or shortsighted. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with him defending Kournikova, but does he have to bash his female colleagues in the process? What does that say about his views on women?

BTW, this guy needs to get his facts straight. It is not just female commentators that bash Kournikova. I have read and viewed enough news articles and sports shows over the years to know that his male counterparts bash Anna with an almost religious fervor. It is articles like these that clearly demonstrate how society today views women's participation in athletics.

auntie janie
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:38 PM
Bravo, apoet! Excellent point, well presented. :)

Iconoclast
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by janie
Another silly article on Anna. Thes writers always mention her accomplishments but fail to observe how long ago they all took place.
The girl is still only 21. We don't need tree-ring dating when listing her achievements. 2000 was a very solid Anna year. And we can't simply choose to ignore her doubles results because they don't fit the agenda.

She was a very consistent performer until her injury in February 2001- not that long ago, unless one suffers from amnesia. Granted, she has not been very successful at regaining her previous level. But she has shown signs of improvements over the last few months. Even if the US Open was a major set-back.

MinskLynx
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:57 PM
but does he have to bash his female colleagues in the process? What does that say about his views on women?

So, it's okay for them to bash Anna, but not to be bashed themselves?

Iconoclast
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by apoet29
I take exception to the "less than attractive female commentators" statement. [Snip]
Certainly a valid point you raise. I have found it to be male journalists who take the bloodiest stabs at Anna, so I was wondering whom he was referring to. Can't remember any one directly stating that she was "bad for the game".

Crazy Canuck
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:59 PM
beautiful post Apoet.

Its funny, when I saw Anna in NY this past week, no one was harder on her at the end then the thousands of men who boo-ed her (yes, some were women, but most of the catty remarks i heard came from men).

auntie janie
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:59 PM
Another example of what I meant when I called the article silly.

MinskLynx
Sep 2nd, 2002, 09:59 PM
I speak from experience that when most women speak negatively towards another it is out of some unprovoked, unbacked, hostility.

MinskLynx
Sep 2nd, 2002, 10:02 PM
It infuriates me that women today are still judged by the same old patriarchal standards of beauty, particularly in the world of sports.

So is life. I can not say I agree with the trend, but it is unstoppable. Just kind of have to accept such a thing as you accept death, it is inevitable and it happens to everyone.

MinskLynx
Sep 2nd, 2002, 10:04 PM
The writer hardly used any supporting details of her career of the masses there are.

apoet29
Sep 2nd, 2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Megan


So, it's okay for them to bash Anna, but not to be bashed themselves?

Megan,

I have no problem with anyone defending Kournikova against bashers. I have a problem with the way this guy did it.

I never said that Anna should be bashed at all. I NEVER said that. I don't that ANYONE should be bashed for any reason. My point was that the author was using this particular article to bash his female colleagues. It seems to me that this author was saying that it is okay for men to criticize Kournikova, but if a woman does it, she is simply jealous of Anna. I have seen several articles in MS magazine, the icon of the feminist movement, actually defend Kournikova. Apparently this author didn't even attempt to get his facts straight on how women actually view Anna.

True, women can be their own worst enemies, but let's be honest here, men have taken their own meanspirited potshots at Kournikova as well. Some of the most negatively written articles about Anna come from men who see her as a symbol of everything they despise about women's athletics.

I do realize that the patriarchal views of female beauty will probably never change, although things have improved a bit, especially for women of color. However, that does not mean I have to like or accept it.

Janie,

Thanks for the support.

Rebecca,

Thanks for the compliment. I saw Anna's match and was appalled by the booing. Yes, her performance was horrible, but I found it completely hypocritical that the same men who were booing her were the same men who were only interested in her image and not her tennis. They probably didn't even know she could play tennis until they read about the US Open. Even worse, these guys probably don't know a thing about the game.

Iconoclast,

Thanks for the compliment. I've never heard anyone say she was bad for the game either. She sells tickets. Her winnings in doubles proves she has talent. However, in the world of tennis, singles is what counts the most and that is the measuring stick Anna is being judged by.

Scott Storm
Sep 3rd, 2002, 12:00 AM
Great article!

Dawn Marie
Sep 3rd, 2002, 12:18 AM
Silly article. Anna needs to focus right now period! She is underachieiving, I think most people in the tennis world know she is talented. Which is why people come down hard on Anna.

Apoet fantastic post!! I understand where you're coming from. :)

Volcana
Sep 3rd, 2002, 12:59 AM
Most articles about tennis in general focus on people's careers as singles players. We don't talk much about Serena Williams GS doubles titles either, but she has seven of them. Anna might have been better off if she'd never made it into the top ten. She didn't get any fame out of it. And it made never winning much more of a focus.

Anna could have been a good looking girl who played tennis, but who wasn't good enough to win. By making the top ten, she became a good looking girl, WITH WORLD CLASS TALENT, who wasn't good enough to win. That's a lot more egnimatic, and thus newsworthy, than 'champion doubles player'.

MinskLynx
Sep 3rd, 2002, 03:52 AM
Now that I am thinking about it, most women are NOT the hypercritical ones. The commentators for instance commend Anna for her achievements, her points, her hard work, etc... The men hold the view that a woman can't be beautiful and talented.

Rocketta
Sep 3rd, 2002, 04:03 AM
I mean if people want to give her kudos for her doubles success where are Raymond/Stubbs and Pascual/Suarez Kudos??? They are tearing up the doubles tournaments this year and you barely hear a word about them. So the guy points out that people don't mention Anna's doubles success, why should they? They don't mention anyone else's double success.

the cat
Sep 3rd, 2002, 04:20 AM
Good point Rocketta!

Don't blame men for Anna's problems. Men and women are guilty for liking Anna for her style. Some of those men and are Sports Writers.

I'm not sure what the article proved. Other than Anna was on her way to the top five in 1998. Then the roof caved in on her after the thumb injury! :(

Fine points by apoet. And Megan already has a wise view on the world! :)

juggler
Sep 3rd, 2002, 05:14 AM
the article proved what she has done, as opposed to what she hasnt done, which is what is written about 95% of time. and because of this the vast majority of the worlds population belive she is a talentless hack.

the refrrence about less than attrictive female commentators i dont agree with either, but it is not the main point of the article.

servenrichie
Sep 3rd, 2002, 10:46 AM
What i hate most about this article is the stupid comparisons. Micheal Jordan for instance is a living legend with results and charisma to back it up, Serena Williams has her own share of success on the court. When you talk about them, their results come first. Anna while showing a remarkable talent prefered to make her own statement outside the court. She became more popular than her results. At the beginning it was fine with her. I remember then that guys in my office were actually swapping posters of her downloaded from the internet, playing in a flimsy fabric without a bra. Through the soaked dress, you could see everything and this guys werent even onto tennis! Fastforward it a few years later, she has become a well known face and something of a joke in regards to tennis for having not won a single tournament, trying to peddle back to become a elite player. All well and good, fact is, it doesnt work that way. Take a week off and you need 4 weeks to get back to where you were before the break. Iva Majoli, Patty Schnyder, Lucic or even Monica Seles can testify to that. That said, when they all started (Anna, Venus, Hingis, Serena etc ) Anna was very, very talented and extremely promising but other things were more important then.
I think i have started rambling a bit here. The bottom line is she made her choice then and she is still making her choice today, i mean who among other high profile players will have such a hard loss in the first round of a grandslam only to go to the MTV VMA-Awards later seemly without a care in the world? It speaks volumes as far as i am concerned and before anybody jumps on my throat, yes it is her right and yes it is her life. And, her fans have every right to defend her, but then you cant have your cake and eat it
I take exception to the notion that only "less-attractive-players" criticise her. Criticisms directed to her are well founded, though they go over-board sometimes, but it is due to her very high profile.
Career highlight of say a Jana Novotna is her Wimbledon crown and not how many no.1 players she beat before she was 17 or how many doubles she won. It has always been about singles and not doubles. Since when does beating 4 top ten players in a tournament make one a elite player? Should we call Testud a elite player, she was always giving the top players a run for their money, also Amanda Coetzer. The difference is those players actually won tournaments. Anna made her choice and shes got to live with it. There are always two sides to the coin.

ajayares
Sep 3rd, 2002, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by servenrichie
i mean who among other high profile players will have such a hard loss in the first round of a grandslam only to go to the MTV VMA-Awards later seemly without a care in the world? It speaks volumes as far as i am concerned and before anybody jumps on my throat, yes it is her right and yes it is her life. And, her fans have every right to defend her, but then you cant have your cake and eat it


Why don't you atleast get one thing right in your arugment.. later?? You seem to be giving the impression that she went later that night, to the music awards.. umm Monday afternoon lost, Thrusday night the music awards, that's a whole 4 days , she played doubles on the Wednesday, you suggesting that she should not have played the doubles too, because it was such a horrible performance in the singles?? I highly doubt it.. Do you expect her to hide in a corner in her hotel room and cry for the next 2 weeks?? I highly doubt it, so what did you expect???

As for not having a care in the world, well did you expect her to appear in tears?? or something else, I am sure she is extremelly disappointed over her performance, Anna does a really good job of hiding her emotions on the outside, but I bet deep down inside she was hurting..

As for any other player attending the music awards, well perhaps it might help if your boyfriend is nomiated for an award, then perhaps they may have attended, however one thing for sure, if she was still involved in the singles, it would be highly unlikely that she would have attended..

Anyway as for the article, well I will not comment on that, because I know exactly what she has done in her career and I don't need to be told of her accomplishments.. her career is in its earlier stages and she has many years ahead of her, in which she can live up to her talent, sure she has underachieved at the moment, I don't think anyone denys that, but all isn't lost just yet..

servenrichie
Sep 3rd, 2002, 12:04 PM
ajayares, the "later" was figuratively speaking. Sure her boyfriend was nominated and yes the video she did was also for her boyfriend. The magazine layouts was for her management etc.
Therein lies my concern, she needs to peddle back on those things a bit and concentrate on her tennis.
Those things are what put such pressure on her in her tennis, that she'd be a super-human, if it does not affect her at all.

If you know that she has under-achieved, then why so defensive?
Instead of making excuses how she has to be hurting inside at the awards, it would be better to try to find what might be the problem.

Mensch, i cant even believe i am here writing an essay about Kurnikova and discussing here. Sorry, i am one of the few people who usually stay out of threads about her. I guess i posted because of those ridiculous comparisons with Micheal Jordan, Jim Palmer, Roger Craig and Serena Williams. I took exception to that.
Please disregard any of my criticism. I am out of here!

apoet29
Sep 3rd, 2002, 12:10 PM
I think Anna going to the VMA's after a horrific loss gives the perception that she does not care. No one, except her and perhaps her coach, knows exactly how she feels after such a loss. But I'm not sure that going to a high profile awards show after such a loss is a good idea. No, I don't think that Anna should punish herself, but she really needs to stay out of the spotlight for a while and find out why she is falling apart in these types of matches. Anna's hit rock bottom and no amount of doubles play is going to fix what is wrong with her singles game at this point since in singles, she is always going to be alone on the court.

Honestly though, no one knows what goes on in Anna's head but herself and I think there is where her problem lies.

ajayares
Sep 3rd, 2002, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by servenrichie
ajayares, the "later" was figuratively speaking. Sure her boyfriend was nominated and yes the video she did was also for her boyfriend. The magazine layouts was for her management etc.
Therein lies my concern, she needs to peddle back on those things a bit and concentrate on her tennis.
Those things are what put such pressure on her in her tennis, that she'd be a super-human, if it does not affect her at all.

If you know that she has under-achieved, then why so defensive?
Instead of making excuses how she has to be hurting inside at the awards, it would be better to try to find what might be the problem.


I am not making excuses, i am just saying that the girl doesn't give anything away, sure she might have been smiling at the awards, but doesn't mean she isn't hurting over her performance, people show their emotions in different ways, Anna never gives too much away.. but I know that it doesn't mean she doesn't care, as some people seem to think..

As for the magazine layouts, she hasn't done any Since 1st March, infact she hasn't done much this year inregards to off court stuff, but people get the impression that because everything she does gets reported, eg shopping the other day, i am sure Serena/venus do alot of shopping too, they talk about it, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for them, I am sure alot of other players go out, do stuff off the court, but they never get reported, we only ever hear what Anna does.. it's Anna was here, Anna was there, bla bla, it is same old sh!t..

All of this just allows her critics to have field day.. Is it fair?? No, but you can't do much about it..

As for her underachieving, well there are numerous reasons for that, injuries being the main one and the mental lapses that she gets in some matches especially when she gets herself into a winning position, but most of that gets back to confidence. She has got a great coach now and time we tell if she can get back into the top 10.

When I say she has underachieved that is based on my opinion that she is one of the 5 most talented players going around, sure talent alone doesn't always get you to the top, you need to be strong mentally, Anna isn't, but certainly with her talent alone, she should have won many tournament by now, i think she made the mistake by not playing smaller tournamenrts when she first started on the tour, she didn't because her ranking was good enough to play in the higher tier events, probably now in hindsight a mistake, but isn't hindsight great, you can't change it now.. Anyway their is so much pressure on her now, to just break thru and win any tournament, I haven't lost faith in her yet, she has a great game to watch, it is just a matter of puttng all the pieces together..

Volcana
Sep 3rd, 2002, 02:59 PM
It is indeed true that writers often write about what Anna hasn't done, rather than what she has done. However, how many players who've done what Anna has get written about at all?

Anna gets money like a top five player.
Anna gets used in advertising like a top five player.
Anna shows flashes of top five talent. Once every two months or so.

Anna gets written about like a top five player. Which is to say, a lot. The problem is, 99% of what gets writen about tennis gets written about singles. Doubles gets written about when areally accomplished singles player also has great doubles accomplishments, or a grat doubles team is about to do something noteworthy. In fact, doubles teams don't often get written up. Usually it comes up the context of whatever the better singles players are doing.

Which is where Anna gets nailesd as a dobles player. She's viewed as Pam Shriver. The lesser half of a great doubles team. It's worse for Anna, because Martina Navratilova won so many of her doubles titles with Pam, almost all of them. Pan really was half the team. Martina Hingis has won nine GS doubles titles with SIX different partners. (3) Novotna, (2) Kournikova, (1) Sukova, (1) Pierce, (1) Lucic, (1) Zvereva. Some of those partners were very accomplished doubles players in their own right. Zvereva. Some were not. Pierce.

But the fact is, the partner doesn't seem to be what makes or breaks Hingis as a doubles player. Anna?

How many GS doubles titles has Anna won without the best doubles player in the world as her partner? none.

How many doubles titles period has Anna won without the best doubles player in the world as her partner? four.

Check out another 'lesser half' of an accomplished doubles team.

Corina Morariu

7 doubles titles won w/o Lindsay
4 doubles titles won w/ Lindsay

1 GS doubles
1 GS mixed

Corina doesn't have QUITE as good a doubles record as Anna. But the evidence does show that shes bringing something to the partnership besides a live body. Because she doesn't need Lindsay to win. Because the lone singles title shows she CAN win out there by herself.

Am I saying Corina's better? Absolutely not. They are however, quite similar in terms of doubles accomplishments. Which means that the amount of press Anna gets for being a doubles players is about he same as Corina gets. That's what good not great doubles players get. Hell, that's what GREAT doubles players get.

The writers don't FORGET Anna's accomplishments as a tennis player. They view those accomplishments as trivial. Before you get on their case, ask yourself how one-dimensional singles players like Graf, Seles, and Evert can even be mentioned in the same breathe Court and Navratilova, who played singles doubles and mixed. Court had 63 GS titles. Navratilova had 56.

Graf didn't even have 25 GS titles.
Evert didn't even have 20.
Seles didn't even have ten.

If most people consider doubles at all important, 'best player ever' discussions would simply be Court vs Navratilova, no others need apply. (I have to admit, in the interests of full disclosure, that that's how I view it. #1 Navratilova, #2 Court #3, Everybody Else)

So you gotta ask yourself, is doubles important. If it is, then Anna has real accomplishments, and is shortchanged by the press. But Court and Navratilova are shortchanged even more. If doubles ISN'T important, then Graf, Evert and Wills Moody should be in that best ever conversation, and Anna may be more than the lucky partner of the best doubles player in the world.

Iconoclast
Sep 3rd, 2002, 10:35 PM
Fair points, Volcana.

Never intended to inflate the significance of doubles. I'll easily acknowledge that they usually count for very little when assessing the career merits of a player. However, we can't simply discard all doubles achievements as if they didn't exist. There's a middle road between seeing doubles results as vastly important and dumping them in the nearest trash can. After all, Olympic gold medals are awarded in this branch of tennis. People are making a living specializing in it. Admittedly, most on the men's side.

In the context of Anna Kournikova, her big, fat zero on the singles titles account is oftentimes highlighted. Certainly, it's worth mentioning to accurately list her credentials. But is it entirely fair to exclude Grand Slam titles in doubles; is some obscure Tier IV trophy really worth more than top doubles honors in a Slam?

It might be. One can always make the case that it's impossible to place any value on doubles results, because the contributions of one person in a partnership effort is impossible to measure. Maybe you are just lucky to be playing with a genius. Some undoubtedly have been.

That's probably one of the reasons why doubles merits are not center of the attention in discussions about all-time greats. We can't fully dissect them and understand what they mean. On the other hand, Navratilova must have done something right.

I would never use Anna Kournikova's doubles results to enhance her reputation as a singles player. But I would use them to judge her career as a tennis player. Similarly, Pam Shriver deserves some recognition for that part of her tennis vocation.

Graf vs. Navratilova? If we rate overall accomplishments, including doubles, Martina runs away with it. But these discussions usually mean 'best singles player ever'. And we can hardly hold it against Graf that she wasn't too excited about the social interactions of doubles play.

So I think you overestimate the ramifications of granting some value to doubles achievements.

MinskLynx
Sep 3rd, 2002, 11:10 PM
I just wanted to point out Volcana, that if Anna is the lesser half of a doubles team, why is SHE #1 and not her partner? (1999)

apoet29
Sep 4th, 2002, 12:21 AM
She was number #1 due to the points system in doubles that takes the best of seventeen tournaments. Anna had good results in doubles in 1998. She won her first tier 1 doubles event that year with Seles. Those results rolled over in 1999.

There is no doubt that Anna deserved the no. 1 ranking in doubles that year. She played phenomenal tennis in doubles. However, she was playing with Hingis who was still no. 1 in the world in singles and at the height of her own tennis prowess.

As Iconoclast points out, doubles cannot be dismissed entirely when looking at any player's career. Anna's prowess at doubles demonstrates her talent and while Hingis is an incredible doubles player, she did not win those titles with Kournikova by herself.

I don't think Anna's doubles wins should be used to enhance her lack of singles titles. I do think that if Anna truly wants to be regarded as a top player, then she needs to have wins in singles in order to merit that position. The biggest problem Anna faces is competing with her past results. In tennis, any achievement is measured by a consistency of higher achievements. If you win a tier 3 title, then a tier 2 or tier 1 is expected to be your next win. After that, a grand slam. After that, another and the juggernaut of expectations continues. Anna's career started out so strongly and then injuries, the weight of expectations, the lack of good coaching and the distraction of celebrity all contributed to her on the court problems today. Unfortunately, Anna is in a vicious cycle of perception and expectation that she cannot escape from. At the recent Acura tourney, Anna was asked when she made the quarters, if she felt that she could win the tourney. Given her protracted slump, that was a tall expectation to meet. While Anna did make the semifinals and had match points, she eventually lost 0-6 in the third which is more telling of her own mental letdown, than her opponent's strong play.

I do wish Anna well. I would like to see her break through somehow. Otherwise, it is a waste of talent.

juggler
Sep 4th, 2002, 12:45 AM
forget all these doubles comparisons and so forth. the article is never intended to prove anything to us. most "fair minded" people on this board know what anna has accomplished, and know she is not totally useless as a tennis player.

but as i said earlier, if u asked the majority of sports fans who would have a vague interest in tennis, and even some of those who play alot of club tennis...they all have this built up perception that anna is just a pretty face who loses every first round (partly true this year) and has probably never been ranked higher than 50. this perception has been created rightly or wrongly by the media. these quasi fans simply dont follow the game as closely as we do to know some of the facts.

so this is what i like about the article, it provides for these fans the other point of view, rather than the stuff that gets written 95% of the time.

the most important stat in this article is the 64% winning record