After Atalanta

It might be a sign of the apocalypse but it is indeed true. I agree with Brad Gilbert that Justine Henin-Hardenne should have played until the end of the final of the Australian Open. Henin-Hardenne retired in the second set , after losing the first to first-time slam winner Amelie Mauresmo, with an upset stomach. Yes, an upset stomach. No, she did not throw up on the court, take a bathroom break, or turn a funny shade of yellow/green. First, before I tear into Henin-Hardenne, I think Mauresmo should be given major kudos. Most of the press will be about Henin-Hardenne and the way she ended the match and I hope Mauresmo's accomplishment is not completely overshadowed by this. My 2006 predictions from December picked this year for Mauresmo to finally rid herself of that ugly moniker "Best Woman to Never Win a Slam." Maybe this bodes well for the other part of my prediction about Mauresmo! Here's hoping. So should Mauresmo (even though she says she never reads the press ...

Study results were released today that report on the prevalence of white male leadership in 119 NCAA Div-1A institutions. The report cites small improvements in the numbers of minority men (seemingly define as black, Asian, Latino, or American Indian in this study) and women (defined as white women). But the percentages are abysmal and hardly worth reporting at all if there wasn't some need to assuage white guilt. While my limited observations suggest there is some progress in hiring minority coaches, the upper levels of administration are still an almost informidible old (white) boys' club. What I found interesting about the article were comments from the study's coordinator, a man, and the NCAA's VP for diversity inclusion, a woman: Lapchick said the NCAA should implement rules like the NFL and Major League Baseball that require teams to interview a minority candidate for each coaching vacancy. "The goal is to open the process to get the best people in the room a...

Waiting for the good matches (i.e. Mauresmo/Schnyder and Hingis/Clijsters) to come on tonight, I decided to watch the Big Ten men's b-ball match-up between Iowa and Indiana. As I was not very invested in the outcome, I paid more attention to--yes--the ticker scores. One of the categories was BIG TEN. It was there of course because this was a Big Ten match-up and is not a usual category--ok that's fine. It showed stats of basketball teams and players in the conference--men's teams/players specifically. I am willing to concede that again this was because ESPN was airing a men's game. But do they do the same during women's games? Sure ESPN will put up the scores of women's games (though there seem to be considerably fewer scores than traverse across the screen when the men's category is up) and even show the current rankings on a fairly consistent basis. But do they show stats? Or do they post pertinent news from the women's game as they do for other sports...

Because I have been watching ESPN2 a little more consistently in the past week due to the network's coverage of the Australian Open, I have had the chance to get a closer look at the network's practices--including the ticker tape that runs scores on the bottom of the screen almost continuously. Now I have, of course, seen the running scores before, but I have been noticing the extensive coverage of college men's basketball. First, it always seems as if there are far more posted scores for men's basketball than women's basketball. And second there are colleges I have never heard of whose scores are being listed. Clearly these are smaller programs yet they get ticker time. What is the ESPN2 (and presumably ESPN the first) rationale for this? We get scores of men's teams that have little chance of making news come March yet we never get scores from other collegiate sports like hockey--men's or women's. I thought last year's NHL strike would generate mor...

So has anyone else looked twice at some of the outfits female tennis players at this year's Australian Open (currently underway) are sporting? Nike's dress for women with little to no breasts is particularly curious. I have seen both Maria Sharapova and Karolina Sprem wearing it--in different colors. I thought it was cute at first but then the more I thought about it, the more it seemed quite infantilizing. I see that the high empire waist baby doll style is coming back this season but the combination of the style and the color choice (pinky/purplely and light blueish) make them look like baby doll pajamas. In their alleged cuteness they simultaneously suggest a naive sexuality that is apparently sexy--especially when very long, tanned, toned (and of course hairless) legs emerge from underneath these outfits. Of course Nike's line is available to the public and I wonder how many women will be buying up these dresses for their weekly doubles matches the club--and of course ...

What a great weekend for a variety of sport happenings. I didn't get to watch too much of the US Figure Skating Championships but I have been following the news. My musing about the potential irony of a Sarah-Hughes supported Michelle Kwan petition for a spot on the Olympic team came to fruition. Provided that Kwan can prove she is healthy and has the right stuff she gets to go to Italy and Emily Hughes is relegated to an alternate position despite her third place finish at nationals. I can see both sides of the argument and don't really have a strong feeling one way or another as my interest in figure skating has waned of late. What actually got me a little more excited as not this Kwan controversy but the American men's competition, which was quite competitive this year. Weir turned in a flawless but not very exciting (despite the costume) performance. But I was very impressed with third place finisher Matt Savoie whose performance was beautiful. Defying gender stereotype...

Having finally begun to see the light at the end of the academic tunnel I have been stuck in for months now, I am paying more attention to actual sports (rather than theories of sport which have dominated my academic path thus path). The shivers I feel now are not a result of nervous exhaustion but of excitement for the upcoming Olympics. And luckily I have emerged just as things are getting interesting--particularly in the world of American figure skating which is currently in the process of determining who will go to the Olympics. Of course there is the Michelle Kwan controversy which is practically old news by now. Though it does not negate my anxiety over how it will unfold. Of course the most startling irony would be if Kwan is chosen over Emily Hughes whose older sister and reigning gold medalist Sarah, said on the Today Show yesterday that Kwan deserves a spot on the team because of all she has contributed to the sport. I am not judging--just noting. But getting less press (I th...

I am so glad the Olympics are right around the corner because I need to write about something other than tennis.* But given my current state of bogged-downedness in a myriad of projects the only thing I have had time to read of late (besides academics) is the aforementioned back issues of Tennis . And I noticed the other night while skimming the year in review issue that the magazine seems--or at least this issue seemed--to be a little slanted towards all things male. This was particularly suprising to me because 1) I am usually hypervigilant about media bias in sports coverage and I have been reading Tennis for years without noticing anything and 2) because last year on the men's tour was BOR-ING. The year in highlights had 4 "gray" boxes, one for each Grand Slam. Only one featured a woman, Venus Williams at Wimbledon. I was surprised the US Open box did not feature Kim Clijsters (who got mentioned elsewhere though) in her first Grand Slam win. I am not advocating for s...

Seems that since my last (long ago) post, I have been reading more and more about tennis players and doping. Part of this may be that I am catching up on my tennis news through back issues of Tennis that my dad saved for me (thanks, Dad!) and let me take over Christmas. Years in reviews and predictions for next year all mention doping at some point--who will get caught perhaps, how the tours will deal with it, some speculation that it is already rampant but very hush hush (how anything can be hush hush in our media and celebrity crazed Western society though is cause for speculation in itself). So it's definitely on the tennis radar. So much so that people are starting to make money off it already. A British-based company is selling sport drinks, bars, gels and the like to tennis players promising them the products will not be tainted with banned substances. They have taken super duper precautions to promise customers (banned) substance-free supplements including individual packag...