3 Comments

1. Ken Parish

   February 1, 2006

   Gerard Whateley's article is indeed a fine piece of sports journalism, so thatnks to you and Brian for bringing it to attention. But I beg to differ on Williamson's piece. It is on a par with just about all his plays of the last 15 years or so, which is to say glib, shallow, pretentious and complacent. I can't help thinking that Williamson has his own plight in mind when he bemoans the meeja's supposed tendency to try to cut the tall poppy Federer down to size. But Federer remains a sublime tennis talent, while Williamson is a one trick pony whose trick has been repeated too many times.

2. Nicholas Gruen

   February 1, 2006

   Cruel but fair.

3. saint

   February 1, 2006

   I'm not a sports journalism afficionado either but Whateley's was a nice piece. An intriguing match where body language gave more away than winners, and mental toughness won the day. Early in the match it seemed Federer was just too conservative, almost fearful of the upstart, freaking out perhaps at the thought of losing to not just anyone, but an unseeded player while Baghdatis played like, what the hell, and even dared to fun with Federer's game (like messing with God really). Then that turning point where Federer returned to his natural briliant game (what was that slice backhand about I dunno) - you could tell he knew he was going to win by the third set - while Baghdatis seemed to have woken up (or was that turned inwards instead) and thought *shit* I'm not ready for this. I shouldn't be here. I'm an imposter.

   Ken's criticism of Williamson may be right (dunno, have only seen a couple of his plays performed and well, OK but nothing to write home about, and who knows about Williamson the man). But having watched a lot of this tournament, and putting that together with some of Federer's statements about the meeja during tournament press conferences as well as comments from other players (like Roddick), he may have had a point.