Howdy. I decided that I wanted to get back to a little hard news and general housekeeping before I posted my Manly Virtues entry and the accompanying “Man or Metrosexual?” quiz. So I’ve now put that off until Monday, because I’m taking tomorrow off, heading for the farm in game-rich Andes, where my mission for the weekend is to use the blue-stone from our quarry to build a natural-looking walkway out the giant boulder from which Luke and I like to dive into the pond. My wife Lisa has yet to allow her feet to touch the squishy mud bottom, so a diving platform is imperative!
So, some random thoughts:
The U.S. Fed Cup squad, led by Captain Zina Garrison, has a real shot at Belgium thanks to Justine Henin-Hardenne, who has been replaced on the team by Leslie Butkiewicz (What a cool name for a tennis player. Hi, I'm Leslie Kick Butt-a-witz!) I’m sure that our American (Whoops, sorry! Make that “Gringo”) readers will all join in wishing the U.S. squad of Jill Craybas, Jamea Jackson, Vania King and Mashona Washington the best of luck.
But get a load of the quote Henin-Hardenne dropped, in defense of her decision to leave Kim Clijsters twisting in the wind (I'd double that rope, hoss). This is a masterpiece of dissembling and – talk about two for the price of one! – an amazingly vivid and clear example of why so many people so intensely dislike The Little Backhand That Couldn’t, Even When She Didn’t Quit.
Justine's comment was read from a prepared statement in French: “She regrets that she can’t play, but she’s not in 100 per cent shape physically and mentally. She said it was more difficult and courageous to make this decision to not play instead of saying she would play. She is 100 per cent behind the team and will be present on Saturday and Sunday to support the team.”
Wow. Let me Fisk this statement:
She regrets that she can’t play, but she’s not in 100 per cent shape physically and mentally. . .
Who is, at this time of year, among the top players? Henin-Hardenne has played exactly three matches more than Champagne Kimmy since the start of the French Open.
She said it was more difficult and courageous to make this decision to not play instead of saying she would play. . .
The only possible way this astonishing statement of delusion-grade self-absorption can be taken as true is if she forgot to add. . . and then, under intense pressure from the Russian mob, throw the match. I mean, if you just listened to this girl talk and didn't know better, you'd be convinced she's Joan of Arc.
She is 100 per cent behind the team and will be present on Saturday and Sunday to support the team.
What a gal! You know what? If I’m champagne Kimmy, I lay down the law right now: if Justine sets foot in the arena before, during, or after the tie, I take a long walk and never play Fed Cup again.
All I can say is that Justine better have a broken leg to justify this bail-out. It’s just a horrible slight to the sport, and even worse if the girls have some kind of secret agreement that will result in Justine playing the final, should Belgium win, while Kimmy makes her own “difficult and courageous” decision. After all, neither of the other semfinalists, Spain or Italy, is a powerhouse.
But I doubt there’s any deal like that. This is all about Justine. Isn't everything?
In other matters: I apologize to Jonas Bjorkman. After reviewing the comments under my last post, Flogging a Dead Horse I find myself agreeing with those who pointed out that there were far better candidates for “Least Inspiring Performance, Men’s Division” than ageing, playa-imitatah, and HOQ Tim-grade Federer worshipping Jonas.
My original thinking was that Bjorkman’s crime against competition took place on a bigger and brighter stage than that of anyone else. But overall, given the tournament Jonas had, the goodwill he spread (not to mention the fact that he was pretty much right about The Mighty Fed, even though it would have been nice of him to show some displeasure at having lost) and his age, he deserves a more compassionate (ugh, the very word is like a dagger through my heart!) and good-natured send off.
So here’s to you, Jonas, and the LIP award goes, a day late and a dollar short, to David Nalbandian (for all the reasons cited by the comment posters on the subject).
On another front, comment poster and former National Spelling Bee champ from the state of Texas, Mici, pointed out somewhere between all that bold-faced type that, according to ITF rules, play proceeds at the pace of the server (not, as I wrote, the receiver). The exact wording is “The receiver shall play to the reasonable pace of the server” (according to The Code ).
Mici (He/She/It) is, of course, right. I screwed it up, and to be perfectly honest with you, I have no excuse. Of course, this only strengthens my main point in that item: that it’s time to start enforcing the rules - or throw them out altogether.
Lastly, on this draw issue, consider this. The reason tennis matches aren’t predictable, and why I’ve never gloated about being right (I bet sports author John Feinstein that Andres Gomez was going to beat Andre Agassi in the Roland Garros final of 1990) nor felt embarrassed about being wrong (I picked Justine The Courageous and Jet Boy Nadal to win Wimbledon just a few days ago), is because at some point not very far below the statistical surface they become a crap shoot. And that’s why they actually play the matches, instead of doling out the trophies based on style points or, like the Nobel Prize, on a “body of work.”
So tell Pete Sampras he had a great draw the year George Bastl beat him in Round 2 at Wimbledon. Your great draw is a great draw until it’s not, a thought that most recently might have occurred to Jet Boy somewhere in about hour 4 of his second round battle with qualifier Robert Kendrick.
But my main point, which I never stated explicitly in yesterday’s post, is that putting any serious degree of emphasis on the draw, one way or isn’t really fair or particularly telling, except in special circumstances, like the one I wrote about way back in my post, Tainted Glory. Too many so-so guys can have a great day, too many good guys can have a bad day.
If you are a degree-of-difficulty freak and want to know the toughest draw anyone every faced, check it out.