MELBOURNE—Someday I’ll have to come to Australia to look around a little bit. As it stands this year, my view of this continent has consisted of a tennis facility, the 10 minute walk between that facility and my hotel—it’s an excellent walk, past the cricket ground and through a corner of sweet-smelling Yarra Park—and the 100 yards from my hotel to the café and newsstand on the next corner. I don’t even have to go over there if I don’t want to; I could get the papers and eat breakfast in the hotel and never leave. But I like the walk, and the coffee at the café, and sitting outdoors in January, and passing a restaurant along the way called Two Fat Indians. I’m going to have to try it before I go.
The papers themselves are the highlight. As convenient, and ecologically sound, as it would be to sit and read them on my IPad, there’s still something enjoyable about leafing through dead wood. It doesn’t feel like work.
Links: *The Age*; *Herald-Sun*; *The Australian*
See my Racquet Reaction on Petra Kvitova’s convincingly shaky win over Ana Ivanovic here, and one on Victoria Azarenka's win over Agnieszka Radwanska here.
Caroline in Question
Martina Navratilova spoke yesterday. No surprise, her words were blunt; no surprise, they were hard to argue with, either.
“Clearly nobody feels that Wozniacki is a true No. 1,” Navratilova said. Who does deserve the spot? Martina is firmly in the camp of her countrywoman Petra Kvitova, of course. This may not make Navratilova the most partial observer when she commentates on a Kvitova match—I haven’t heard her down here at all—but it probably helps Petra to have such a respected and enthusiastic believer.
Setting New Double Standards
That wasn’t all Martina talked about in her press conference yesterday, of course. The Australian’s Patrick Smith picks up on another theme of hers, double standards between the men and women. Smith begins by expanding on a theme from last week: Reporter’s questions about the female player’s famous athlete boyfriends.
“There’s no vice-versa here,” he writes. “The media takes male golfers more seriously than women tennis players.”
Smith moves on to the more tried and true topic of equal prize money, but he comes up with a fresh analogy:
“It’s a disrespect replayed every year at the Australian Open when the prize money available to women is questioned because of the little time they spend on court compared with the men. . . . It’s a bit like saying the winner of the women’s high jump at the next Olympics be given a lesser medal than gold because she will not jump as high as the winner of the men’s event. It makes no sense.”
Hmm, I’m still thinking about it, but I think I like that argument.
Smith goes on to say that while the women’s game is less stable, the idea that men’s tennis has a deeper talent pool is hard to believe at the moment, with the continued dominance of the Top 4.
Digging Their Own Grave
The Age’s longtime sports columnist Richard Hinds makes his 2012 Aussie Open debut. His riff: the Ivan and Andy Show. Hinds’ has a kitchen-sink comedic style: He throws a drum-roll joke in every paragraph and sees what sticks. Some don’t, some do.
Comparing Murray’s demeanor to that of a “grave digger,” Hinds writes,
“’We have a similar sense of humor,’” said Murray, evoking a vision of player and coach rolling about at the sight of a drowning puppy. Ominously, Murray says he would like to be more ‘robotic’ on court, like Lendl. What's next? Maria Sharapova pledging to become more self-absorbed?”
