Letters to the Editor
Akron Mike
Published Letters: 144 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Not So Fast, King!
[Read the article: Returns, returns, returns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a long-time tennis fan and a hardcore public courts player throughout my 20s and early 30s, I agree in theory with your "embrace your nichetude" suggestion. In fact, I find few things more worthless in the world of sports chatter than hearing a Woody Paige or Jay Mariotti opine about the careers of Federer or Nadal, or for that matter any Grand Slam event. Nor do I have any interest in grabbing others by the collar and trying to convince them that tennis is still a great game to play and watch.
That said, I'm willing to give the Wertheims, Ted Robinsons and Johnny Mac's a pass for over-selling the sport. Nichetude might be fine in theory, but in reality it has its dark side. Witness boxing. How many casual to semi-serious fans wouldn't love to return to the days when championship bouts could be found nearly every Saturday afternoon on ABC's "Wide World" or CBS's "Sports Saturday"? Not to mention those times when the networks televised championship bouts on a Friday or Saturday night. (One of my all-time fave moments of sports TV viewing was a Friday night when ABC televised a wonderfully strategic championship bout between Ray Leonard and then welterweight champ Wilfred Benitiz, a televised card which also featured a 15 round war that ended in a draw between a middleweight contender named Marvin Hagler and then champion Vito Antefuerrmo.) Hence, my fear is if tennis becomes too niche, it could ultimately go the way of a premium channel; i.e, no more free viewing access of the grand slams -- or I should say what most of consider "free" as it pertains to cable.
In terms of the "greatest match ever" label ... well, considering the event and the history at stake, it's a valid argument. But it's also a bit like calling the recent Giants/Pats Super Bowl the greatest pro football game ever. Might be the greatest SB ever (in fact, it would have my vote, though I still think the Denver/Green Bay game gets a bit shorchanged), but the argument becomes a stretch if one considers other playoff (and regular season) games. In fact, one could argue that the Giants/GB NFC title tile was every bit the game the SB was, despite the face-numbing conditions.
Anyway, as a big-time Fed fan who nonetheless likes Rafa, I was happy to see tennis show up (in a positive light) on the front page of the sports section ... if only for a day.
-
@seniorplaid
[Read the article: Returns, returns, returns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These "best of all-time" debates are always dicey, but just a couple points of perspective. When Roddick made that self-mocking and honest assessment, he had NEVER beaten Federer in something like twelve or thirteen matches. Federer, I believe, has beaten Nadal a half-dozen times, twice in Wimbledon finals. Moreover, given the discprency of their results in the hardcourt Grand Slams (US and Aussie), one might be pretty comfortable in assuming Federer would have thrashed Nadal at either Flushing or Melbourne the last few years, if Nadal himself hadn't been beaten by lesser ranked players in earlier rounds.
Bottom line: all these guys (Fed, Sampras, Borg, maybe even Laver) have holes in their resumes to potentially dispute the claim of best of all-time. As an example, Sampras himself was arguably never even a top-25 player on clay, and only reached one French semi-final his entire career.
Who knows, in a few years we may be having the same debate about Nadal or even Djokovic. And my hunch is they will have a few holes too.
-
@crooked_teeth
[Read the article: Returns, returns, returns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Funny you should mention that Wilander/Lendl final. I've always had it near or at the top of my list, though (splitting hairs here) I thought it was in '88 not '89. You're semi-right to call it a baseliner's "snoozathon", but as I recall those interminable rallies and tape-skimming slices lent it a bottom of the ninth World Series-like tension the last two sets. Interesting too in that each player would never be the same. Wilander, after having finally won the US and reached #1 status, seemed to lose all ambition and was out of the game in a couple of years, and Lendl, I believe, never again won another Slam.
A few matches I might add to your list. The '77 Wimbledon final between Borg and Connors in which the former raced out to a 4-0 lead in the fifth only to see Jimbo win the next four games before the stoic Swede took the last two. Also, wasn't there an Agassi/Sampras five set barnburner in the quarters or semis one year in which Andre finally beat him? And, for obscurity purposes, there was a famous Davis cup match between McEnroe and Wilander one year that went something like 16-14 in the fifth.
-
@crooked_teeth part 2
[Read the article: Returns, returns, returns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, and I believe that Ashe-Connors final wasn't all that competitive. Only went four sets tops. Now it's remembered, somewhat too romantically, as Ashe's last GS championship in the twilight of his career. But at the time it was most significant because it provided other players a blueprint to beat Connors (at least on grass). Chip and slice mid-court to Connors' flat forehand and watch him sail the ball long -- Ashe junk-balling him into one unforced error after another. A surprising outcome certainly but not the most thrilling match.
-
So this sort of visual wouldn't pop up on the Daily Show?
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Couldn't agree more with the article. Don't know what's more disturbing -- the fact that a sizable chunk of the left has morphed into right-wing scolds, or that we're asking one of the last intellectual rags in this country to go safe and dumb things down.
Anyway, a tip of the hat to the New Yorker. Though for sheer laughs, I don't think it's as good as their cover some months back of Obama and HRC in bed and desperately trying to be the first to pick up the ringing red phone at three AM.