I’m not mucy of an afficionado of sports journalism, but Brian Bahnisch sent me this write up of the big match and David Williamson had a quite nice piece speculating on why Roger cried.
Recent Comments
- Nicholas Gruen on A metaphor, a hack, a ladder: On the difficulty of telling yourself the truth
- Nicholas Gruen on Orwell that ends well: Can evaluation save us from ourselves?
- Nicholas Gruen on Trust and the competition delusion: A new frontier for political and economic reform
- Nicholas Gruen on Adam Smith was a feminist economist: Care – the essay
- Two types of strategy: Part One | Club Troppo on Cometh the hour: Paul Krugman’s Nobel
- Nicholas Gruen on Where equity and efficiency thrive together: Can you propose some more examples?
- The strange alchemy by which we built a world of bullshit | Club Troppo on “Values based management”
- Nicholas Gruen on Will you join me in the alt-centre?
- The NDIS: there, but for the grace of God, go us all | Club Troppo on Vale Ford
- johnrwalker on Figuring out the strange new rules of resource constraint
- johnrwalker on Figuring out the strange new rules of resource constraint
- Nicholas Gruen on Figuring out the strange new rules of resource constraint
- Nicholas Gruen on Will you join me in the alt-centre?
- Nicholas Gruen on Paul Krugman: Nobel Prize or Academy Award? When economic theory is a tower of babel
- johnrwalker on William Hague gets on board
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Categories
-
Authors
Archives
Author login and feeds
Academic
Alternative media (Australian)
Alternative media (international)
Arts
Business
Centrist
Economics and public policy
Left-leaning
Legal
Online media digests
Psephology/elections
Right-leaning
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.
Cruel but fair.
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.