I started playing tennis about a month ago. I've got a friend who plays, and we average about three nights a week on the court (until I suffered a severe ankle sprain which I am currently nursing). Tennis is a sport I've always had an appreciation for but never followed closely or paid too much attention to with football, baseball, basketball, and golf consuming what attention is left over from Christ, work, music, and my girlfriend. However, as with anything, the more I play the game and the more I improve at it, the more I want to follow it. I even watched a couple sets from a match in Dubai last week between two eastern European guys with names I had neither heard nor could pronounce.
My point, I'm getting into tennis hardcore, and I just saw a headline that not only disrupts my newfound interest in the game but also my overall philosophy for international sports which basically is that I first always want "the Amercian" to win, and if there is no viable American competitor, I'll pull for a Brit (especially in tennis, they need to win Wimbledon), then an Irishman (Scot or Welshman), then a German or an Eastern/Nor-Euro, then an Italian, then an Asian, then a Spaniard, and then a Frenchman in which case there is nothing but Frenchman left and I can't imagine that being a sport I would care about.
Anyway, my point is that my main criterion for choosing whom to support in international sports are based on patriotism. That said, what is the biggest patriotism-fueled sports event in the world?...The Olympics, of course.
Well, Andy Roddick just announced he's skipping the Olympics to gear up for the U.S. Open.
I understand that he wants to win the Open because he's an American and it's the only major he stands a chance in right now, and that the Olympics aren't as big a factor in Tennis as, say, javelin throwing, but still, this pisses me off.
Represent your country, Andy!
Set aside your carreer for pride in your country every four years. That's like three times in the average career.
This also bothers me because there are major athletes that take immense pride in representing our great country in the Olympics. Take Lebron James, for instance. He's arguably the biggest athlete in this country right now, and I've heard him equate his desire to win Olympic gold for America to his desire to win an NBA championship for Cleveland, which he's very passionate about.
There's always been something that bugged me about Roddick. I just could never put my finger on it. Well, now I have a reason.
Say, who's the top Brit in tennis right now?
zeius
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Zeius, I applaud you on the passion you're developing for tennis. It's a fantastic game; probably my favorite to play. I'll save an ode to tennis for another day, but I look forward to getting on a court with you at some point. BTW, I am sorry to hear about the ankle; I hope it's feeling better.
Andy Roddick has been difficult to defend for an American tennis enthusiast over the past couple of years, as he's disappointed in several of the Grand Slam tournaments, losing more than occasionally in the first or second rounds. Understandable at the French Open (played on clay), but indefensible at the year's first Slam, the Australian Open, when one should be extremely focused and relatively fresh. However, I must come to his defense vis-a-vis the Beijing Olympics.
There are several reasons for opting out of this summer's Olympiad, not the least of which is that playing even a best-of-3 match in the outdoor Beijing smog, as opposed to LeBron's game on indoor courts, is an unpleasant (even hazardous!) prospect for a tennis player. You could argue that an ardent patriot would hazard such tribulations on behalf of his country. The Olympics for tennis, however, is not the patriotic equivalent of the World Cup for soccer. I am proud that Andre Agassi won the gold in '96 (probably more motivated than he would be otherwise by the opportunity to play on U.S. soil for American crowds), but modern tennis at the Olympics goes back only as far as '88. The closest equivalent that tennis has to the World Cup is the Davis Cup, the major difference being that the latter is played every year. This tournament is the focus for patriotism in the tennis world, and I am delighted that our American men won last year's Cup. There has really never been controversy (at least, in terms of patriotism) connected with a player's decision not to play at the Olympics; there is, on the other hand, controversy any time a top American player decides not to join his countrymen on the Davis Cup squad. The more you get into the game, you'll see that this is the case. I must also note that Andy has competed with tremendous patriotism and excellence on the American squads since his rise in the rankings.
Aside from the relative unimportance of the Olympics in the tennis world, I have no doubts that Andy's decision is largely, if not solely, due to the simple fact that this year's Games are hosted by one of the most politically and ecologically (e.g., health concerns) brutal regimes in the industrialized world. There are all kinds of concerns with sponsorship that affect a player's decision, and I expect we will be seeing more and more defections from athletes of all events and countries in the ensuing months. Also, the pretext of preparing for the U.S. Open, though completely valid in itself, is simpler and far less political than decrying the Chinese regime, deferring to one's sponsors, or spouting his political and ethical views. He plays tennis, and he lets his game speak for him.
The last thing I'll say about Roddick is that, if you're looking for a reason he bugs you (aside from appearances in the media), his lackluster performances in major tournaments are a better reason than this year's Beijing Games.
This comment is already overlong, but I want to respond to your rooting system along international lines (I imagine it pretty closely corresponds to your allegiances in soccer). My own allegiances were shaped during the late '80s and early '90s, watching tennis with my dad. This was the era of Boris Becker and Steffi Graf, and as such I have a fondness for German tennis players (although none have in any way merited this fondness since Graf). I would recommend (though this may occur naturally for you) to simply come to the game as it is now. Observe the current players on the circuit, and respond to their on- and off-court personalities and to their game. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he became a Republican because he first came to the U.S. during the 1968 election, and the ideas of Nixon's party appealed to him more than those of Humphrey's. I think you'll find players you naturally gravitate toward, and others who repel you. Tennis is a fiercely individualistic game (one of its greatest aspects), but it is possible a pattern of your liked and disliked will emerge along national lines.
That said, despite your predetermined affinities, I must say that if you observe current British tennis players for very long, you will be very quickly turned off. Not so much that they are contemptible as human beings (they're not), but as players. Tim Henman has been an emotional favorite at Wimbledon for the last decade---and I like him---but he will never win it, and his short days in the top ten are behind him. Andrew Murray, a soon-to-be 21-year-old Scot, is currently the top-ranked and only notable Brit. I believe he is currently hovering outside of the top ten, and if his game hasn't yet peaked, he could eventually find his way into the top five. Among Anglophones to cheer on (there have never been any great Irish or Welsh---or for that matter, Canadian (Greg Rusedski included) tennis players in the modern era), I was surprised you omitted Australians from your list. In the so-called Slam Era (1968 on), Australia has arguably been the greatest birthplace of tennis players. I can't say that I've cared much for their two greatest sons of the last decade, Patrick Rafter and Lleyton Hewitt, though Hewitt, still playing and the top-ranked Australian, has mellowed with age. Currently, Spaniards, Russians, Americans, and Argentines are the most prolific men's players by country of origin. I generally oppose the Spanish-speaking players, as they excel almost exclusively on clay courts, only a quarter of the tennis season. I generally dislike the French, as you also maintain, but there is one exciting young Frenchman to look for: Jo-Willfried Tsonga, currently #17, behind two of his countrymen. Let's see if he can repeat his success from this year's Australian. Also, Zeius, three names you must know in the present constellation of men's tennis: Novak Djokovic, a young Serbian; Rafael Nadal, Spanish; and of course, destined to be the greatest ever, Roger Federer of Switzerland. Again, I urge you to come to the game as it is, and respond to each player individually (with the exception of the Spanish/South Americans---feel free to lump). I won't think less of you for rooting harder for Andy Roddick and James Blake (I certainly do)---USA! USA!
Congratulations on your new-found interest! I look forward to playing you, discussing tennis with you, and hopefully, sitting down to watch some matches with you. Let!
P.S. A further post or comment should probably be written about the women's game, which is rapidly becoming more Slavic/Floridian and...hotter.
T - While I certainly appreciate your effort to educate...I do know who Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are...I said I've pay tennis little attention, not no attention. I do realize you're trying to help...
I actually completely forgot about the Australians which stinks because I hear they're such a delightful people, and I actually have one Australian friend at church who definitely affirms this notion.
Your right, though, my tendency is to approach tennis like soccer which, given it's individualistic nature, would be unwise. I will heed your advice.
I've actually watched a Federer/Nadal match before I started playing, and I usually try to watch Wimbledon from the Quarters in.
My friend whom I've been playing is partial to Djokovic...I've never actually seen one of his matches (only highlights)...Your thoughts?
Also, I am familiar with the Davis Cup and try to keep up with it every year, and I know that the Olympics aren't as big a deal in tennis as other sports, but still...it's the freakin Olympics...And all your points about the health/political considerations are very good points
and some I had considered myself, but were it me, the fact that it's in Beijing would motivate me more to go over there and dominate. Perhaps that's foolish...Or perhaps I'm tons more patriotic than the average pro tennis palyer.
z
I should have inserted "surely" before "you must know..." Shouldn't have left that ambiguity.
Djokovic just won the Australian Open, his first major, after beating Federer in the semifinals. He then beat Tsonga in the finals. Djokovic has been a rising star over the last two years, but until last year's U.S. Open was stuck in 3rd place, behind Federer and Nadal. (Actually he's still #3, but that could change.) He advanced to the U.S. Open finals last year, where he lost to Federer, and then topped that tournament performance, as already mentioned, in this year's Australian. He's been delighting crowds with his passion and incredible game, and also with his engaging personality and goofy sense of humor (he does impressions). A hard player not to like.
When I listed most prolific countries earlier, I should have asterisked the U.S.: Roddick and Blake are both in the top ten, but only 4 other Americans are even in the top 100. The French and formerly Yugoslavs should also have been mentioned (current Serbians and Croatians having been born in Yugoslavia).
Yeah, just peeked at the top 100...Very few American Flags...
Post a Comment