[the cat]

I'm curious about this. I was pulling the latest issue out of my mail box and I was wondering who they would have on the cover of their post Wimbledon issue. I was thinking Serena Williams would be on the cover. But she wasn't. It was Roger Federer.

I wonder if Tennis Week would have put Roger Federer or another anonomous male European tennis player on it's cover after Chris Evert won her second Wimbledon title. I can guarantee you they would have put Evert on the cover instead of any anonomous male Eurpean player. But they didn't do the same for Serena. And I wonder why.

 

[Mateo Mathieu]

Roger won his first GS title so, what?

 

[great smash]

I'm curious about this. I was pulling the latest issue out of my mail box and I was wondering who they would have on the cover of their post Wimbledon issue. I was thinking Serena Williams would be on the cover. But she wasn't. It was Roger Federer.

I wonder if Tennis Week would have put Roger Federer or another anonomous male European tennis player on it's cover after Chris Evert won her second Wimbledon title. I can guarantee you they would have put Evert on the cover instead of any anonomous male Eurpean player. But they didn't do the same for Serena. And I wonder why.

Everyone in turn I guess, I'm sure Serena has been on the cover (too) many times already.

Second, I still rate Roger's performance more impressive

 

[Tratree]

oh please...it was Roger's first GS win...I'd think that merits a cover.

 

[mboyle]

Cause they are evil racist haters who can't stand black women !

 

[Amanda]

It was Roger's coming out cover. He is now a "brand name" tennis player.

 

[Hendouble]

Hmm, let's see. Serena Williams defends Wimbledon title successfully, wins second Slam of the year. Roger Federer wins first ever Grand Slam title having suffered first-round exit the previous year. Which one do you think is worth having on the cover? It's quite obvious which one is the bigger story.

So Federer is "an anonymous European player", is he, despite having just become Wimbledon champion and now being ranked no. 3 in the world? It's absolutely typical. The key word in that sentence is European. If Roddick had won Wimbledon, there wouldn't be the slightest objection to having him on the cover, would there?

 

[Crazy Canuck]

So Federer is "an anonymous European player", is he, despite having just become Wimbledon champion and now being ranked no. 3 in the world? It's absolutely typical. The key word in that sentence is European. If Roddick had won Wimbledon, there wouldn't be the slightest objection to having him on the cover, would there?

Bingo.

Damn those Europeans!

 

[TheBoiledEgg]

well said Sjengster

this is getting ridiculous me agreeing with Sjengster more and more

 

[seldom83]

becuz roger is the man! his performance was really impressive, plus its his first GS!

 

[Hendouble]

Don't worry TBE, it won't last - I've made a solemn promise to Hackie that it won't, so she'll never forgive me if I start agreeing with you on everything...

 

[the cat]

So many responses so fast!

What I meant was that Federer is anonomous to American tennis fans. Well compared to Serena anyway. But Roger is a joy to watch and I consider his game on a grass court a nice blend of Pete Sampras' and Stefan Edberg's grass court games!

And if I recall correctly, Tennis Week didn't even put Serena on the cover of Tennis Week in their post 2003 Australian Open where she won the prestigious "Serena Slam".

 

[Doris Loeffel]

It's not only the word European but also anonymous. Guess Roger needs to win a tourny in the US immediately to get out of that anonymous European group. (Guess reaching the final in Miami last year wasn't good enough yet...) Well at least now you know what this anonymous European looks like

good post Sjengster btw.

 

[Hendouble]

You can bet that's entirely because Andre the Ageless (a phrase copyrighted by one particularly insular newspaper columnist over here during Wimbledon) also happened to win on the men's side, which is one of the few bigger stories for an American audience other than Serena winning.

Also, consider this: Federer may well be anonymous to most American tennis fans now, but how else will he become more well-known unless he is featured more often on the covers of magazines and given more exposure? He does of course have an in-built advantage by winning Wimbledon; Ferrero will probably have to work twice as hard to gain any sort of name for himself because he won RG, which is of course far less important a victory...

 

[DA FOREHAND]

He made the cover because his story was more deserving...Now had an injured Venus beaten Serena in the final they might have put Venus and Roger on the cover. Roger played an incredible tournament, and deserves/earned all his accolades.

 

[Cybelle Darkholme]

He deserves the cover. First slam after many many many ugly early exits. Plus he's a cutey in a Young Frankestein sort of way. Whats with those massive eyebrows!

 

[Hendouble]

I've seen bigger - just look at Sampras.... What really worries me about Federer's eyebrows is the way they slant down villainously, giving him a rather menacing air as he sits contemplating and gathering his thoughts during the change of ends. That, and the fact that his nose looks as though it's been bent out of shape in one too many bloody prize-fights. But essentially, those are rather churlish criticisms of a great player on my part.

 

[the cat]

Where is Sjengster? Sjengster = Hendouble?

Hendouble, who did Agassi beat in the 2003 Australian Open final? Wasn't it Rainer Schuettler? And didn't Agassi beat Scheuttler in one of the easiest grand slam finals ever? In my opinion that doesn't compare to Serena winning the "Serena Slam" and beating Kim Clijsters and Venus in exciting matches in the semi's and finals.

 

[Paneru]

Rodger deserved it!
Serena had her turn and besides this is his first cover and a coming out party for him. He'd been hyped for so long and know he finally lived up to it and put on a show/clinic in defeating Andy and Mark.

Love Serena,
but happy for Rodger.

 

[Hendouble]

Yep, that is my username on another, more ATP-related board.

I know what you mean, but it just sums up the problem with coverage of tennis - so long as Agassi, an American, won it doesn't matter who he beat or whether the matches were any good. It was also his first Slam in two years, the last since the AO 2001, so I suppose in a way that was as big a story as the Serena Slam. My hunch is that with Serena having won the last three Slams as well, there was a feeling of ennui about her having won a fourth in a row, even though it was a great achievement. Tough, but it may change at this year's US Open depending on who the male winner is.