Mornin'. Y'all know that the press, especially here in the UK, can be especially tough, and that's especially true for women players. The oft-repeated question in the presser for any woman who's lost a tough match is, "Does this loss really hurt?"
The next question frequently is, "Does it hurt more than etc. etc. etc."
This is followed by, "Exactly how hurt are you?"
And so on. . .
Granted, it just doesn't pay to get into an antagonistic relationship with the press, no matter how tempting or justified it may be. The reporters have the access to the soapbox, the player doesn't. But when a player truly let's his or her "racket do the talking" (in the crude, oxymoronic phrasing), it's possible to push back. So while Dinara Safina wasn't well-positioned to engage the press after she was blown out of Wimbledon by Venus Williams, the winner certainly was, given the mortifying margin by which she won (6-1,6-0).
So yesterday Venus showed not just a lot of class and compassion in her defense of women's tennis, she made her point with icy calm, directly engaging a critical pressman (I don't know who it was) with a steely gaze that even her male peers would be hard put to match. Here's the heart of the exchange:
Q. This isn't your fault obviously because you played really well, but it's embarrassing for women's tennis to see the No. 1 destroyed in that way, isn't it?
A: Why do you put it like that?
Q. You played very well.
A: Are you trying to be down on women's tennis?
Q: I'm trying to be down on the way that Safina is the world No. 1 representing women's tennis.
A: So you're trying to be down basically.
Q: Not on women's tennis, no.
A: Okay, because I don't deal with down at all.
Q. It's not down.
A: I'm just making sure you're not trying to be down, because I respect Dinara Safina immensely, and I think you should, too.
Q. I do. . .
A: Thanks.
Wow, Venus, this ain't your first rodeo, is it?
Note that the reporter at first backed down, then cleverly tried to make the issue all about Safina, then lapsed into protesting his innocence, then, well. . . completely caved. Venus never let him of the hook, as so many players will do in their eagerness to get back into less controversial territory. As smackdowns go, it was nothing less than magisterial. The reporter may have had a point, but it was meant to be shoved like a shiv between the ribs of the WTA, and Venus called him on it.
So my question is, who would have thought Venus would be such an apostle for the WTA game? Wasn't this the same woman who, not so long ago, was thought by many to be in conspiracy with her sister, Serena, to ruin the women's game?
Beyond that, my own feeling is that the current fault-line in the ranking system is an unavoidable product of the very specific and highly unusual circumstances, and it behooves commentators to approach the subject with honesty, acknowledging that the no. 1 ranked player at any given moment is not necessarily the best player, nor is he or she advertised as such. The analogy isn't entirely accurate, but does anyone really think that Rafael Nadal ought to be ranked no. 1 among the men today? Of course not. With a final and win in the only two majors already decided this year, Roger Federer is the "true" no. 1. Yet nobody is asking him if it's "fair" that Nadal is ranked no. 1.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the rankings are a consistency rating system, most useful for seedings. Anybody who covers tennis ought to understand the intent of the rankings, and recognize that the top-rated player isn't necessarily the "best" or even most succesful player by the standard most pros embrace: Grand Slam victories. And this, too: the players just show up and play; they don't make the system, they operate with it.
Enjoy the tennis, everyone!
PS - If you want to see any image in this and all subsequent posts in full-size in a new window, just click on it. . .
- Pete
-- As at 1:35pm, an Overflow post is up - Andrew