Medley: Wimbledon Notes 13 Jul 15
Back in the day,
tennis winners celebrated victory by jumping over the net to shake hands
with the vanquished. Sometime around 1980, Bjorn Borg was apparently
told by some PR person that he needed to do something different than
calmly walk to the net to shake hands so that it would look good when
replayed, so he sunk to the ground. Ever since, it’s become de
rigueur for a tennis winner of a big match to sink to the ground
after a victory.
nothing normal about this, so it looks feigned, which is exactly what it
is, phony theatrics. Better to emulate former Detroit Lion running back
Barry Sanders. When he scored a touchdown there were no dances or dunks
over the crossbars. He just handed the ball to the ref and jogged off
the field as if there were nothing unusual about him scoring a
touchdown. Tennis players should take heed and stop falling to the
ground in celebration as if they had just experienced their first
orgasm. When Novak Djokovic beat Roger Federer on
Sunday, he showed his respect for Federer by just
walking to the net to shake hands. I hope this augurs well for the
ESPN’s coverage of Wimbledon is marred by the audio. The crowd noise is
so amplified that it drowns out the commentators, making it almost
impossible to hear what they are saying. With most tennis commentators,
that’s no big loss, but listening to John McEnroe is often better than
watching the match. ESPN needs to lower the volume of the crowd noise
so that it is background to the commentators, which seems to me to be
just basic common sense. Apparently nobody at ESPN watches their events
or they would be aware of this problem.
insists on covering each point from the high camera. The low camera
gives a much truer aspect of the ball clearing the net and the speed of
the game. It’s like baseball which shows each pitch from the low
centerfield camera than the high camera behind the plate (which was the
original play by play camera in the ‘50s). The low camera puts the
viewer in the tennis match.
from the Jo-Wilfried Tsonga- Ivo Karlovich match,
with Tsonga down 2 sets to1 and leading 6-5 in the 4th set,
to show an interview with Roger Federer. The interview could have been
recorded and shown later. No TV network should cut from live action for
an interview. ESPN finally returned to pick up the match at 6-6, 5-5 in
with commentator Brad Gilbert gushing, “What a great passing shot!,”
which we didn’t see. Is it really more important to ESPN to show an
interview than to show a close, exciting match live? Does ESPN view its
primary job at Wimbledon or any other sporting event as televising an
event or a
staged interview? This is deplorable judgment.
Bad Rule That Needs to be Changed:
Tennis has a bad rule which worked to John Isner’s disadvantage twice in
the second to last game of his marathon match with Marin Cilic. Twice on
with Isner up a point in the pivotal game, Isner had an advantage on the
point due to Cilic having hit a fault on his first serve so Isner got to
receive a second serve. Both times one of Isner’s shots was called out.
When Isner appealed both calls, both were reversed when the replays
showed that they had landed in. So both points were replayed. However,
Cilic was given a first serve both times, to Isner’s disadvantage, and
Cilic won both replayed points and went on to win the match in the next
game. If a point is replayed and the server was on his second serve, it
should be replayed with a second serve, not giving the server a first
serve as the rule presently prescribes.
nickname “Redskins” degrading?
The rumor is that Keith Olbermann’s contract with ESPN will not be
renewed, presumably because he has come down hard on NFL Commissioner
Roger Goodell. ESPN makes a lot of money televising Goodell’s games and
Roger the Dodger can’t be happy with what Olbermann has to say. I
actually agree with most of Olbermann’s opinions on sports.
But on one
he’s dead wrong. He castigates Washington Redskins’ owner Dan Snyder for
not changing his team’s nickname from “Redskins” to something Olbermann
and his friends think more politically correct because, according to
Olbermann and the Democrat party, the term “Redskins” denigrates those
who have come to be called Native Americans by the MSM (my question for
them is that I was born here; if I’m not a “native American,” what am
I am one who
thinks that the name “Redskins” is laudatory. You don’t name a team
“skunks” or “Nazis.” You don’t name your team something that is a term
of opprobrium. You name it something of esteem, honor, and pride, which
is what George Marshall did when he founded the team in Boston in 1932.
The team played at Braves Field (home of the National League Boston
Braves) and its first coach was William “Lone Star” Dietz, who was part
Sioux. According to a 2013 AP (not a conservative operation) article, in
the only recent poll to ask "Native Americans” about the subject, 90
percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive. This dispute
is a phony political leitmotif, and it is much ado about nothing.
Anybody Here Know Anything About This Game?:
The Los Angeles Times’ favorite Dodger, Joc Pederson (.230, leading the
league in strikeouts with 107, en route to an all-time record), was
named to the All Star Team. Justin Turner (.309, the division-leading
Dodgers’ leading hitter) wasn’t.