today we'll talk about athletes.
soccer: whole portuguese men's team. i absolutely canNOT wait for the match vs. england. they're once again the underdog, but i hope they pull off an upset like the 2000 Euro Cup. that would be AWESOME. they definitely have it in them, especially after withstanding the ridiculous brutality of their previous game.
tennis: andy roddick. while he's had a rough patch lately and isn't quite the golden boy of tennis anymore, he still has a wicked serve and the tenacity to make it in spite of the increasing depth of the field of competition.
track & field: christina hattestadt and stacy dragila. hattestadt is a norwegian javelin thrower who once held some damn good world records. i like her a lot because she took time off to become a mom and then came roaring back in competition, despite the track world's skepticism about her ability to return to form. stacy dragila is just awesome. she was really a force in bringing women's pole vault to the fore of international competition, and the way she nursed a friendly rivalry with the few other women in the event really brought attention to the sport. plus, a record-holding pole-vaulter friend of mine met her and said that dragila is a really down-to-earth, fun person. the sports world needs more athletes like that.
miscellaneous: lance armstrong. duh. jackie joyner-kersee. the retired track star is the epitome of all-around star athlete.
ooops, gtg!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(141)
-
▼
June
(13)
- tennis's grand waste of time
- favorites
- Book'em, Danno!
- my finger had a run-in with the kitchen knife
- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand toby's totally sacked out. YESS...
- lazy
- this is how 5 miles turns into 7.5....
- Custom Fitness Concepts
- oh. my. lord.
- running over a new leaf
- a cat with balls
- i stood barefoot in the middle of a city stream. e...
- calling, opportunity & resources
-
▼
June
(13)
3 comments:
Without Deco, I doubt that Portugal will be able to defeat England. However, the Brits haven't been in top form yet (witness their struggles against Ecuador) so anything can happen.
Andy Roddick, on the other hand, I think is unlikely to become a top men's player. I think his game has plateaued and that despite the flashier parts of his game, he doesn't have what it takes to beat Roger Federer and now the setbacks are coming earlier in tournaments. Maybe Andy really did lose his Mojo before that fateful US Open. Or maybe Andy was just born at the wrong time.
I think the most interesting tennis stories of the last 5 years or so are happening right now. First is the instantly historic rivalry between Roger Federer (phenomenal to watch, uber-dominant grass player) and Rafael Nadal (charismatic, exciting and uber-dominant clay player). Second is the startling return of Martina Hingis, who not only came back, but came back with a great game and a bit of a new image. Third, and maybe most interesting, is the Williams sisters. Venus seems to have developed a mature game as she's gotten older, despite a rough stretch a few years ago. Serena, probably more talented than Venus, seems to have given up - that should be more disappointing than anything Anna Kournikova ever did.
i agree--like i said, andy roddick isn't the atp's golden boy anymore, and these *really good* players are popping up everywhere. while it sort of still is, tennis isn't quite as exclusive as it used to be. i forgot to mention my affinity for amelie maurismo. can't exactly articulate why i like her, but i do. and i have no respect for anna kournikova. from day 1, she was a waste of tennis's time.
See, I'm an ardent Kournikova defender. Not because she is very attractive, either.
Kournikova came onto the tennis scene in Wimbledon in 1997 as a 16-year old, reaching the semi-finals and exciting young boys (and creepy older men and sportswriteres). Here was "the total package" - a great tennis player and someone who was exceedingly attractive, ergo marketable.
If it weren't for that second fact, no one would have noticed when Kournikova failed to live up to the youthish hype. (Although it's worth pointing out that she did become a fairly successful doubles player for several years.) But Anna stopped getting better, likely as an expense of spending so much time modeling, dating hockey players and making a ton of money outside of tennis. She never won a singles tournament and the end of her career was substantially dismal.
That said, the only reason anyone really cares about Kournikova is because she's really good-looking AND she had a great run at Wimbledon as a teenager. If she isn't good-looking, she would have faded into oblivion as her tennis career waned. If she doesn't make a run at Wimbledon one time, she just happens to be a really attractive but unsuccessful tennis player.
I don't want to argue that Kournikova is a victim; actually, she's done pretty well for herself over the last 10 years. My contention is that Kournikova is held to a singular and often ridiculous standard. She's only "a flop" because a bunch of people hyped her because of how she looked. If she looked like Lindsay Davenport, no one would have cared.
All of that said, I think Kournikova could have been a much better player if she had fully committed to it. Maybe not in the Hingis-Seles-Graf level, but definitely in the next tier.
Post a Comment