PDA

View Full Version : Sour Grapes


Tech1
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:58 AM
Venus Williams does not deserve equal pay


By Martin Johnson

Last Updated: 2:19am BST 04/07/2008


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/stylesheets/portal/images/yourview/form.gif Have your say (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/07/04/stjohn104.xml#form) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/stylesheets/portal/images/yourview/comments.gif Read comments (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/07/04/stjohn104.xml#comments)
The equal prize-money debate goes on, but the All England Club have almost got it right in rewarding this year's respective singles champions with £750,000 each. The only minor distinction they should have made was to ink in that figure on the men's cheque in British pounds, and the girls' in Polish zlotys.

At the least the men know they need to be full-time professionals to have a decent shot at winning. The top women are so useless that the Williams sisters spend more time attending to their latest clothing lines and interior design consultancies than playing tournaments, and yet they still manage - in between fashion shoots for Vogue magazine - to pop over and win Wimbledon.

Venus, who won last year's event as the 27th seed, was the prime mover in the equal prizes campaign, claiming that interest in the women's game was every bit as high as in the men's. Complete tosh, of course, as is self-evident from the cost of Centre Court corporate box tickets for the respective programmes.

For quarter-finals, it's £1,100 for the women and £1,995 for the men. For semi-finals, it's £1,395 and £2,750. And for the finals it's £1,850 and £2,990. This discrepancy no longer arises at the Australian Open, where they gave up devoting whole days to women after discovering that their TV audiences were struggling to compete with repeats of Skippy The Bush Kangaroo.

At the ripe old age of 28, Venus advanced to another final at the expense of No 5 seed Elena Dementieva, despite a game that is yawningly one-dimensional. If you were to compile a list of her best qualities, it would go something like:

1) she hits a tennis ball very hard,

2) she occasionally hits it even harder, and

3) er, that's it.

Even so, in the world of women's tennis, this has brought her untold wealth, and a lengthy entry in the players' handbook under the heading of "awards and accomplishments". You can't argue with two appearances on Oprah Winfrey, while Dementieva can only fire back with "Boris Yeltsin was present at the all-Russian French Open final in 2004".

Sadly, after two hours in the vodka tent Boris could have made a better fist of that final than Elena, who has an alarming tendency to collapse when she gets too close to the big prizes. Thus, after losing the first set 6-1, albeit more competitively than that scoreline suggests, it was no great surprise when her second-set fightback from 0-2 to 6-6 ended with her spraying losers all over the court in the tie-break.

Dementieva's main problem, as throughout her career, is hanging on to her service game when she fails to get her first serve in. The second comes across the net with the venom of a butterfly with a broken wing, and even from a starting position two feet inside the baseline, Williams usually had to dash forwards to meet it before it could bounce a second time.

By contrast, the Russian's groundstrokes packed plenty of oomph, and there were times in the second set when she matched Williams for sheer mph, but Venus kept battering away and eventually Dementieva would whack one wide, or into the bottom of the net. Usually accompanied by a shriek so high-pitched that it must have been close to shattering the champagne flutes up in the corporate boxes.

Venus spoke afterwards about how the two sisters prepared for a match against each other, revealing that she usually reads a novel, while Serena opts for a video. However, as far as the spectators are concerned, Venus' choice is probably the more appropriate when it comes to preparing for a ladies' singles. Bring a book.

Read the latest from Martin Johnson (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GGB1QVILLXONHQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQ WIV0?menuId=1087&menuItemId=6848&view=COLUMNIST&grid=F7&targetRule=10)

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:00 AM
:yawn:

this guy must post on tennisforum. :lol:

Bruno71
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:02 AM
It wouldn't be a day without another dose of British sexism in the press. I wonder if these journalists realize that they're the predictable ones.

Bijoux0021
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:12 AM
http://i28.tinypic.com/eirpdu.jpg

schorsch
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:15 AM
:worship: way to go. thx for proving you're a sad bitter loser :rolleyes:

Direwolf
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:31 AM
why da hate? really...
he isnt the one paying Venus..

fufuqifuqishahah
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:33 AM
I read this earlier today.

She doesn't just hit the ball hard willy nilly. There is actually strategy. Maybe it doesn't seem like it because her athleticism is so dominant over her qualities, and because she hasn't changed her game much over the years. If all tennis players did was just whack the ball to no end, then the ball would never go in play and they would never even bother to retrieve the ball.

If all people want is pure strategy, watch chess, not tennis.

I've never seen a sport though where athletic prowess is attacked so much. It's kind of ridiculous. I've also never seen a sport where people are NOT encouraged from being well-rounded individuals THIS much. People need to realize that everyone is different. If one just focuses purely on tennis, perhaps they will have burn-out or not be able to perform as well. Perhaps involving oneself in activities outside of tennis brings greater perspective to the game and enhances mental competitiveness. Perhaps men have different brains than women and that men are much more able to pursue a physical endeavor with a one-track mind. Have these critics looked beyond simple answers? If a critic is to attack the psychology of tennis players, in a sport where psychology is talked about so much, then they need to do a better job of trying to understand players instead of drawing quick easy conclusions for the purpose of sensationalist journalism. Of course, maybe they don't care that they are being irresponsible because such controversial journalism can bring in the readers.

But anyways, from the title, I thought he was going to say something about women's tennis being 3 sets... but he doesn't even go into that at all. He seems to just rant and rave without making the extra effort to think about what he is writing. Is Venus power really the only thing that can be considered her best quality? How about her speed? How about her amazing reach? How about her fight? Yeah. Other than the statistics about ticket costs, he really did not do much to convince readers why Venus does not deserve equal pay.

Peace.

kwilliams
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:37 AM
Jesus, someone's got sand in their vagina!

Relax man and stop talking utter shite. Just because you've got sand in your vagina that doesn't mean you should have vitriolic diarrhoea coming out of your mouth...why make things worse!?

If it makes you feel any better/worse remember that the Williams sister who does win this years Wimbledon will actually take home more than the men's champion because they've bothered to play doubles as well and are performing just as impressively on the doubles court.

Apoleb
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:40 AM
Hilarious...

I disagree with some points (Venus being all about hitting the ball hard. He forgot the movement :tape:), but in general he brought good points, even if controversial. Especially right on the money when it comes to Dementieva.

Black Mamba.
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:47 AM
:yawn:

this guy must post on tennisforum. :lol:

I bet his username is ova.

kwilliams
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:52 AM
This was my response to his article. I hope my comment isn't moderated too much...not that he'll likely see it!

What a vapid and infantile article. Crawl out of the stone age and into the 21st century. Venus' game has many strengths and even the most plebeian of tennis fans could see that. Since you seem to be even below this level you really shouldn't be writing on the subject. Perhaps if you had as much going for you as Venus or her game then you could write something a little more insightful.

I for one am looking forward to seeing the sisters rewind time and take us back to a great time in tennis. This year's Wimbledon has made for quite a good story. It's always interesting to see two sisters face off in a final, especially when they have such differing on court personas. I would much rather watch them (even if the quality isn't always as high as it should be) than watch someone like Federer, who has got the game but no on court persona whatsoever. At least Nadal helps to keep things interesting though.

Also you should remember that because the sisters have been equally impressive in the doubles competition the female winner will actually earn MORE than the male winner. I guess that is just another testament to how they can just waltz on over to Wimbledon and start winning matches (they've played very little doubles this year). Odd that someone whose only talent is apparently hitting the ball hard can make the final and the semi-final (at the least) of the doubles considering how much she has played this year.

You should probably get over yourself. That way you won't look so hateful and stupid. I can't believe this amateurish vitriol was actually published.

DimaDinosaur
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:54 AM
Lol

Malva
Jul 4th, 2008, 05:08 AM
@ kwilliams

Your tirade, I am afraid, is misdirected.

What you are criticizing is not `a serious article', but a piece that belongs to a different genre of classical British humor, with all its venom and sarcasm.

You must have missed the subheading of Martin Johnsons's column:

Acid wit and fresh perspective


If you are serious about sending your response to the Daily Telegraph, they will take you to be a naive simpleton who is completely unaware of their tradition of humorous pieces like this one, a tradition that they cherish and which is very old, by the way.

I rather suggest you relax and enjoy this humorous piece purely for its witticisms: it is after all very well written and entertaining.

If you are able also to see grains of truth in it, so the better.

I have been enjoying British humor for as long as I can remember. Brits are hard to surpass in this department.

Cam'ron Giles
Jul 4th, 2008, 05:15 AM
Sharopova is ghost writing? :eek:

Malva
Jul 4th, 2008, 05:25 AM
I've never seen a sport though where athletic prowess is attacked so much. It's kind of ridiculous. I've also never seen a sport where people are NOT encouraged from being well-rounded individuals THIS much.


Really? New for me. This is the first time I am hearing about it.

Who does criticize so much athleticism in Ladies' tennis? Can you provide me with some information?

young_gunner913
Jul 4th, 2008, 05:32 AM
Jesus, someone's got sand in their vagina!

Relax man and stop talking utter shite. Just because you've got sand in your vagina that doesn't mean you should have vitriolic diarrhoea coming out of your mouth...why make things worse!?

If it makes you feel any better/worse remember that the Williams sister who does win this years Wimbledon will actually take home more than the men's champion because they've bothered to play doubles as well and are performing just as impressively on the doubles court.

:spit::haha::worship:

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 4th, 2008, 05:39 AM
loser....its so easy to see he is a sexist

fufuqifuqishahah
Jul 4th, 2008, 06:12 AM
Really? New for me. This is the first time I am hearing about it.

Who does criticize so much athleticism in Ladies' tennis? Can you provide me with some information?

I was referring to the indirect attacking -- that is, Venus and Serena have been criticized for their complete lack of strategy and that all they can do is bash that ball, when other players, who seem to use less strategy and are less athletic don't get criticized as often. It almost seems as if their athleticism is frowned upon and seen as excess by many in the tennis establishment, instead of being something that is celebrated.

But if what you are saying is true, i had no idea that this was intended to be a humorous piece and wasn't supposed to be taken seriously? It just plays into what many tennis people / tennis writers think in general so well that I assumed, like most would, that it is a serious article.

It is well written without a doubt though.

Destiny
Jul 4th, 2008, 08:47 AM
:yawn:

johnoo
Jul 4th, 2008, 09:19 AM
Is this the martin johnson who is probaley England's greatest-ever rugby player? or another martin johnson.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/3394161.stm
kind of surprising article if its him.

Viktymise
Jul 4th, 2008, 09:22 AM
The guy is a complete idiot. Anyone who takes him seriously needs to read some of the other drivel he's written about Wimbledon over the past 2 weeks.

Journalism at it's worst.

Marshmallow
Jul 4th, 2008, 09:56 AM
It was more of an attack than wit, that was one of the more scathing of his articles (I've only read a few). The others about other plays seem pretty tame. He doesn't think much of the WTA on the whole, he has made some other 'witty' remarks, nothing more than defamation. Worst of all he seems immune to criticism because if you complain, you can't take a joke.

In any case ho hum. Winners gets the title, the money and a place in history. His articles won't count for much. :shrug:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 4th, 2008, 11:33 AM
true that marsh ;)

kwilliams
Jul 4th, 2008, 12:08 PM
@ kwilliams

Your tirade, I am afraid, is misdirected.

What you are criticizing is not `a serious article', but a piece that belongs to a different genre of classical British humor, with all its venom and sarcasm.

You must have missed the subheading of Martin Johnsons's column:

Acid wit and fresh perspective


If you are serious about sending your response to the Daily Telegraph, they will take you to be a naive simpleton who is completely unaware of their tradition of humorous pieces like this one, a tradition that they cherish and which is very old, by the way.

I rather suggest you relax and enjoy this humorous piece purely for its witticisms: it is after all very well written and entertaining.

If you are able also to see grains of truth in it, so the better.

I have been enjoying British humor for as long as I can remember. Brits are hard to surpass in this department.

This isn't a 'fun with sports satire' article. If it was it would be far more tongue in cheek. My knowledge of individual British newspapers isn't vast but as far as I know the Telegraph wouldn't really be one for 'tradition'. Also if you want to call me a naive simpleton you should probably do just that instead of presumptuously suggesting others would see me as that.

Also it wasn't particularly well written and it certainly wasn't witty or funny.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 4th, 2008, 12:18 PM
This isn't a 'fun with sports satire' article. If it was it would be far more tongue in cheek. My knowledge of individual British newspapers isn't vast but as far as I know the Telegraph wouldn't really be one for 'tradition'. Also if you want to call me a naive simpleton you should probably do just that instead of presumptuously suggesting others would see me as that.

Also it wasn't particularly well written and it certainly wasn't witty or funny.

;)

Infiniti2001
Jul 4th, 2008, 01:26 PM
Really? New for me. This is the first time I am hearing about it.

Who does criticize so much athleticism in Ladies' tennis? Can you provide me with some information?

Didn't you say you don't have a television or cable? :shrug: Anyway, it really just sounds like one individual seething with resentment. His arguments are so stale and so debunked he should be ashamed to appear
in public. Has he ever watched tennis? Bring a book? Right. I will. For the mens' final although I hope Nadal wins :p

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 4th, 2008, 01:30 PM
Didn't you say you don't have a television or cable? :shrug:

:tape: but yet argues about everything

SunriseSunset
Jul 4th, 2008, 02:19 PM
A good laugh. I don't agree with his sexist attitude but still, he should do comedy instead.

Malva
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:22 PM
I was referring to the indirect attacking -- that is, Venus and Serena have been criticized for their complete lack of strategy and that all they can do is bash that ball, when other players, who seem to use less strategy and are less athletic don't get criticized as often. It almost seems as if their athleticism is frowned upon and seen as excess by many in the tennis establishment, instead of being something that is celebrated.

I see. So it is not just the athlecism in Ladies' tennis as a whole but rather the athleticism of the Williams sisters which is being attacked... Thank you for the clarification.


But if what you are saying is true, i had no idea that this was intended to be a humorous piece and wasn't supposed to be taken seriously? It just plays into what many tennis people / tennis writers think in general so well that I assumed, like most would, that it is a serious article.

It is well written without a doubt though.

You are not alone. It looks like all those offended by the tone of the piece who voice their disapproval or outrage here, were equally unaware of the genre of the piece.

The guy is a complete idiot. Anyone who takes him seriously needs to read some of the other drivel he's written about Wimbledon over the past 2 weeks.

Journalism at it's worst.

The author of the piece is highly accomplished, certainly not an idiot, and probably more intelligent than the members in certain threads of the TennisForum combined.

The principal British dailies: The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, traditionally uphold very high standards of writing. Not being British myself, I have been reading them with pleasure since the time when I was at the University of Oxford.

The piece in question is a typical representative of a British satyrical genre with tradition going back good 300 years at least. Daily Telegraph where it was published is associated with the Tories, so one may say it upholds traditional values of the Conservatives (a clarification for kwilliams).

Didn't you say you don't have a television or cable?

:tape: but yet argues about everything

How witty!

...has neither TV nor cable yet argues about everything...

Brilliant! I am going to frequently quote the bon-mot you just coined, TeAmWiLlIaMs, never failing to mention you as its author.

Judging from 15,000 posts with which you inundated this forum within the span of 15 months, you are not particularly averse to making your thoughts public either.

I hope you are not jealous -- my humble output hardly can compete with yours.

I have a habit to read most of the things a few times before posting but if you find any faults and omissions concerning facts mentioned in my posts I would be the first one to thank you for correcting me.

Apoleb
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:28 PM
The article is meant to be taken seriously. It's full of satire and mockery, but that doesn't mean that it didn't intend to make a point.

Funny to me how people are bashing the author, but they barely brought anything meaningful to challenge his ideas.

He's right on the money when it comes to Dementieva. He's right too when it comes to Venus. Venus' shot making abilities could be summarized as: hitting the ball hard and flat. She sometimes ventures to the net to finish the point, but that's it. She's indeed one dimensional, but that's like 90% of the tour.

His argument about ticket sales is very pertinent and strong. I can't see how women's tennis is more or just as popular as the men's. As he showed, the ticket sales for women matches are much lower than the men's, and the women receive much less TV coverage, simply because the women's game doesn't attract as many viewers as the men's game.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:44 PM
Venus Williams does not deserve equal pay


By Martin Johnson

Last Updated: 2:19am BST 04/07/2008


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/stylesheets/portal/images/yourview/form.gif Have your say (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/07/04/stjohn104.xml#form) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/stylesheets/portal/images/yourview/comments.gif Read comments (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/07/04/stjohn104.xml#comments)
The equal prize-money debate goes on, but the All England Club have almost got it right in rewarding this year's respective singles champions with £750,000 each. The only minor distinction they should have made was to ink in that figure on the men's cheque in British pounds, and the girls' in Polish zlotys.

At the least the men know they need to be full-time professionals to have a decent shot at winning. The top women are so useless that the Williams sisters spend more time attending to their latest clothing lines and interior design consultancies than playing tournaments, and yet they still manage - in between fashion shoots for Vogue magazine - to pop over and win Wimbledon.

So when the likes of Schuettler, Verkerk, Clement, Tsonga, Gonzalez, Berasategui etc. reach Grand Slam finals and the likes of Gaudio, Johansson, Cash and 30 years old part-time player like Ivanisevic win Grand Slam titles it's a sign of great depth of mens tennis.
But when three-time champion (Venus in 2007) wins her fourth title on her favorite surface it's a sign of poor state of womens tennis.

Please, he could have come up with something new...

vadin124
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:44 PM
lol funny article...

this guy knows sweet f-all about tennis, but he is very articulate and very funny...i like him and he should write more articles of similar content :lol:

VishaalMaria
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:46 PM
The article is meant to be taken seriously. It's full of satire and mockery, but that doesn't mean that it didn't intend to make a point.

Funny to me how people are bashing the author, but they barely brought anything meaningful to challenge his ideas.

He's right on the money when it comes to Dementieva. He's right too when it comes to Venus. Venus' shot making abilities could be summarized as: hitting the ball hard and flat. She sometimes ventures to the net to finish the point, but that's it. She's indeed one dimensional, but that's like 90% of the tour.

His argument about ticket sales is very pertinent and strong. I can't see how women's tennis is more or just as popular as the men's. As he showed, the ticket sales for women matches are much lower than the men's, and the women receive much less TV coverage, simply because the women's game doesn't attract as many viewers as the men's game.

The author is getting bashed because he is wrong in the way he has written his article. Ok, he may feel that womens tennis in general is rubbish and it is nothing compared to mens tennis, but he should have written his article with some class, or not bothered writing it at all. Again, it's not what he said, but the way he said it. No one is going to take his comments seriously, if the general tone of his article is aggressive; you need to understand that which is probably why no one has "brought anything meaningful to challenge his ideas".

The essence and notion of tennis is to hit the ball over the hit and hit the ball past your opponent. If you had watched Venus throughout this championship then you'd know that she has sliced, she has come to the net and volleyed, she has hit drop shots, and she has hit from the baseline. What more can Venus, or any other player, do apart from lob? So, in that respect, I don't think she has a one-dimensional game, but then again you could argue that it's subjective.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:52 PM
So when the likes of Schuettler, Verkerk, Clement, Tsonga, Gonzalez, Berasategui etc. reach Grand Slam finals and the likes of Gaudio, Johansson, Cash and 30 years old part-time player like Ivanisevic win Grand Slam titles it's a sign of great depth of mens tennis.
But when three-time champion (Venus in 2007) wins her fourth title on her favorite surface it's a sign of poor state of womens tennis.

Please, he could have come up with something new...

does verkerk even exist anymore :tape: does gaudio even exist anymore?? :tape:

but as usual it goes to show how sexist it is when it comes to tennis and sports in general

égalité
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:54 PM
LOL. I wonder if he cares about Andy Roddick reaching two Wimbledon finals doing nothing but serving hard.

And I don't know if he's ever watched Venus Williams play on grass, but she can sort of volley, too.

Apoleb
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:56 PM
The author is getting bashed because he is wrong in the way he has written his article. Ok, he may feel that womens tennis in general is rubbish and it is nothing compared to mens tennis, but he should have written his article with some class, or not bothered writing it at all. Again, it's not what he said, but the way he said it. No one is going to take his comments seriously, if the general tone of his article is aggressive; you need to understand that which is probably why no one has "brought anything meaningful to challenge his ideas".


I can't see how the style of his writing is an excuse not to take his arguments seriously. If people are going to bother bashing him and call him an "idiot" or whatever, then they better address his ideas. It's just that as usual, some fans get overly defensive.

If you had watched Venus throughout this championship then you'd know that she has sliced, she has come to the net and volleyed, she has hit drop shots, and she has hit from the baseline. What more can Venus, or any other player, do apart from lob? So, in that respect, I don't think she has a one-dimensional game, but then again you could argue that it's subjective.

She slices and uses drop shots once in a blue moon. She relies almost exclusively on her flat ground strokes from the baseline and her serve to win matches (in addition to the movement of course, but I'm just talking on shotmaking abilities). She does come up to the net but basically to finish off a floater (and I mentioned that anyway). She rarely or pretty much never serve and volleys. She rarely comes up to the net on an approach shot unless she's completely forced to. She's as one dimensional as they come, but like I said, that's like 90% of the WTA. :shrug:

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 4th, 2008, 03:59 PM
It's not only Roddick.

I don't understand how can anyone have the nerve to accuse Venus of being one-dimensional when such masters of versatility like Ivanisevic and Krajicek won Wimbledon.

Dawson.
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:01 PM
its martin johnson, hes a moron :shrug:
he slated the performance of cavady against venus in round 1. he said that to become the 5th best player in this country means to barely get a ball over the net. he knows nothing about tennis and is just a sexist, ignorant twat

Apoleb
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:02 PM
Actually it's funny that people mention Roddick. He's indeed one dimensional relatively to other male players. But if you're going to compare his overall game to some of the women, he'd end up like Justine Henin.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:02 PM
It's not only Roddick.

I don't understand how can anyone have the nerve to accuse Venus of being one-dimensional when such masters of versatility like Ivanisevic and Krajicek won Wimbledon.

apart from federer...isn't that the majority of the men play as well?? hit as hard as you can past your opponent???

Viktymise
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:04 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2008/06/25/stjohn125.xml

Seriously, how is this appropriate journalism? He's basically calling Naomi Cavaday a pig. Anyone who takes him seriously is just as retarded as he is himself. He clearly just watches womens tennis at Wimbledon. If he thinks Naomi Cavaday can merely get the ball over the net, why doesn't he give her a match? :tape:

cocco80
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:05 PM
apart from federer...isn't that the majority of the men play as well?? hit as hard as you can past your opponent???

gasquet sure does :lol:
on a serious note, no.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:10 PM
apart from federer...isn't that the majority of the men play as well?? hit as hard as you can past your opponent???

"Real tennis" as they see it means running around your forehand (cos their backhands mostly suck) and putting a lot of top-spin on that stroke. The other proof of being a "real player" is using backhand slices (once again because 95% mens tour can't hit backhand DTL on the run to save their life).

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:10 PM
What is the problem with Gaudio ?

He is a fucking tennis genius

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:14 PM
"Real tennis" as they see it means running around your forehand (cos their backhands mostly suck) and putting a lot of top-spin on that stroke. The other proof of being a "real player" is using backhand slices (once again because 95% mens tour can't hit backhand DTL on the run to save their life).

:worship: thought so...seriously if anyone wants to talk about variety i'm sure up at the net would be worn down as well on these courts...since the men do play more matches on the show courts so with their awesome all court games and the amount of variety they show during each match, the grass up at the net should be worn...


but...what do you know...the baseline is the most worn on the showcourts where, you guessed it, the men play the most matches....

mal
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:18 PM
apart from federer...isn't that the majority of the men play as well?? hit as hard as you can past your opponent???

Well isn't it about winning first?
In this game, one thing counts.

You may like to use all sorts of slices and top and back spin, who doesn't know how to hit them, but you aren't going to draw out a rally then lose a point. That would be stupid.

Malva
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:25 PM
The article is meant to be taken seriously. It's full of satire and mockery, but that doesn't mean that it didn't intend to make a point.


Undoubtedly.

Lolo8
Jul 4th, 2008, 04:49 PM
There is no real justification for all the negativity being thrown towards the Williams . Its all about color plain and simple. When Sharapova won her first slam back in 2004 beating Serena they thought she would dominate that surface and hailed her the queen of wimbledon. They had no problem with the idea of Maria winninng there multiple times. Commentators predicted that she will keep winning there. Now isn't Marias game one dimensional? Marias is even more one dimensional than Venus because at least Venus is a great mover and volleys well. So its ok for a white girl with no variety to win multiple times but not if your black?:o The British are known racist , they despise anything thats dark.

Bruno71
Jul 4th, 2008, 05:22 PM
The Telegraph were kind enough to publish my comment on that article:

I find it amazing to what lengths British male journalists will go to knock on the WTA. When the top seeds pass through easily, there's no depth in the women's game. When they get upset, they stink. Either way, they don't deserve their prize money. I wonder if British journalists realize it's THEY who are the ones that are wholly predictable.

moby
Jul 4th, 2008, 05:52 PM
I personally found the article amusing, but barely. Certainly not amusing enough to ignore the erroneous points he made.
At the least the men know they need to be full-time professionals to have a decent shot at winning. The top women are so useless that the Williams sisters spend more time attending to their latest clothing lines and interior design consultancies than playing tournaments, and yet they still manage - in between fashion shoots for Vogue magazine - to pop over and win Wimbledon.So many things wrong with this. There are top women who are "full-time professionals" and still lose; most of them simply aren't good enough on the grass, especially when Venus and Serena bring it. How can we fault them for their relative lack of grass court talent? They certainly are very committed. Besides, he's discounting all the practice the women do too. Being a full-time professional is not merely about playing tournaments. Many pros spend far more time on the practice courts than playing matches.

By the way, the "full-time professionals" on the men's tour aren't doing such a great job at converting their non-existent shot at winning; we have a Federer-Nadal final for the third year running.

Venus, who won last year's event as the 27th seed, was the prime mover in the equal prizes campaign, claiming that interest in the women's game was every bit as high as in the men's. Complete tosh, of course, as is self-evident from the cost of Centre Court corporate box tickets for the respective programmes. For quarter-finals, it's £1,100 for the women and £1,995 for the men. For semi-finals, it's £1,395 and £2,750. And for the finals it's £1,850 and £2,990. This discrepancy no longer arises at the Australian Open, where they gave up devoting whole days to women after discovering that their TV audiences were struggling to compete with repeats of Skippy The Bush Kangaroo.How exactly is the pricing of Centre Court corporate box tickets determined? (I'm really unaware; he should have clarified to make his point clearer.) Perhaps if the tickets for the women and the tickets for the men were to cost the same, there would not be a significant change in demand for either. Also figures for TV ratings would help his point.

If you were to compile a list of her best qualities, it would go something like:
1) she hits a tennis ball very hard,
2) she occasionally hits it even harder, and
3) er, that's it.The objective in tennis is to hit the ball past your opponent. No one scores brownie points for hitting beautiful lobs and dinks on the lines. I prefer players with flair and variety, but power is indispensable these days, and the more power, the better. As Carlos Rodriguez said, you need to be able to hit a few aggressive powerful shots before you get the chance to use your variety.

Oh, what do "style points" have to do with prize money anyway? Are we seizing Karlovic's prize money and putting him on welfare now?

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 4th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Is this the martin johnson who is probaley England's greatest-ever rugby player? or another martin johnson.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/3394161.stm
kind of surprising article if its him.

its not him
he's a comedy writer mostly doing lots of diff sports

ALL Martin Johnson's are his light hearted attempts at wit
some are quite funny
you havent read his pieces before :spit: