I can't watch tennis anymore. Between the jingoism of the scores with Aussie flags next to the names of locals, and Bruce McAvaney's lustful tones whenever he speaks of Roger or Rafa, it's just too much.
I also don't use Twitter. I made a conscious decision to not learn any further technology after Facebook and settle into slowly morphing into a crotchety old man. So Twitter and Instagram and Vines and Snapchats mean nothing to me.
So naturally when I read a news article about Twitter reactions to a post-match tennis interview I felt compelled to pass comment and launch a blog.
The article states that young Aussie Nick Kyrgios has been criticised on Twitter for cockiness. His crime seems to be making fun of his old mans dodgy fashion sense and his answer to the following non-question...
INTERVIEWER: It was a good comeback from you in that fourth set, because you know, Newc said in the commentary 'Lose this one, you're into a fifth, anything can happen.' "
KYRGIOS: Well, yeah, that's usually what happens when you lose a fourth set, you go into a fifth one, so um yeah, I didn't want to do that...
Obviously I haven't heard the tone, but I don't think it could've been sarcastic enough to be the appropriate answer for a statement of that quality. Yet apparently it was cocky and the twittersphere collectively set to put Kyrgios back in his box. Well, three people on Twitter at least. The article cited three tweets. There's nothing wrong with journalism in this country, by the way.
But even three seems too many.
Who really thinks, sure Nick Kyrgios, you can play tennis better than over 7 billion people in the world, but whatever you do, don't get cocky son! After a few hours of extreme physical exertion have the composure and presence of mind beyond your 19 years to smile and respond to inanities with some uncontroversial cliche-ridden empty response like other professional athletes. The ones I complain are boring.
I wish more people would give questions the answers they deserve. Maybe commentators would lift their games and broadcasts would improve. Maybe an interviewer wouldn't ask one of the ten best tennis players in the world to "do a twirl".
Words From Warner
So the other day, Australia's dynamic opening batsmen and angriest dwarf David "Davey" Warner thought the Indian batsmen Rohit Sharma had taken a run from an overthrow deflected off the bat, except he actually hadn't. Davey was so affronted by this imaginary breach of cricket etiquette, he aggressively ran in from his fielding position to confront the perpetrator of this totally fabricated attack on the Spirit of Cricket.
Sharma then said something in Hindi. Now it is not totally clear it was directly to Warner or a private conversation with his batting partner, but nonetheless Warner asked him to "Speak English". This continues a long tradition of English speakers arrogantly demanding foreigners engage them in their native tongue while never making any effort in a second language themselves.
Then came the radio transcript. Highlights include:
"Understand theoretically I can't speak Hindi. (So) I did the polite thing and asked him to speak English."
After many seasons playing in the Indian Premier League, I suppose theoretically Davey could speak Hindi. But then why would he need an English translation? So the likelihood is he can't speak Hindi, and he also can't speak English well enough to understand how to correctly use the word 'theoretically' in a sentence.
I would also suggest from the footage he may need to work on his manners if that's him being polite.
"I was in the wrong... I shouldn't have engaged him".
Well, that's a mature approach and suggests learning from this incident.
"If people get on the wrong side of me, I'm not going to back down".
Or not.
Cricket players of the world, you're officially on notice. Davey Warner keeps it real. So if you get on his wrong side, by not taking a run from an overthrow then maybe speaking to him in a language he doesn't understand, watch out!
"We're always here to play hard aggressive cricket, but you know what comes with that - sometimes you are going to get fined. We've just got to keep trying not to cross the line, because we're all about playing cricket the right way."
Two marks on your Aussie cricket cliché bingo card - "hard aggressive cricket" and "not crossing the line". Unfortunately there was no mention of the third cliché of the holy trinity - what's happening on the field staying on the field. Presumably because Davey was too busy talking about it off the field to remember the third thing he's supposed to say in every interview about player behaviour.
Anyway, it's clear that the Aussie team has an identity crisis. They are always here to play hard aggressive cricket and wear the occasional fine for the grave offence of line-crossing. But they also want to play cricket the right way and not cross the line. It's a huge dilemma, they are stuck between two ways to play the game.
I blame the placement of the line. It's getting crossed when it really isn't.
Deflategate
This week we learned the NFL lets teams manage their own game balls, because this is a multi-billion dollar industry that doesn't have the resources to sweat minor details like ensuring equipment is independently assessed, or paying referee crews responsible for the results of games with millions wagered on them a fair wage, or deciding suspensions for off-field conduct breaches based on evidence gathered by a thorough investigation.
Predictably a team has exploited this hilariously unfounded level of trust to deflate game balls slightly, making them easier to throw and catch. Even more predictably, it was the New England Patriots, adding to their long history of cheating. I'm surprised they didn't film it.
This is the sole reason the Patriots won by 38 points last weekend and are going to the Superb Owl.
If the NFL is serious about honour and integrity, they will do something about this injustice. Initially I thought they should replay the match this weekend, but I've since realised this also rewards the Seahawks with an extra week off compared to their opponents, which they:
(a) don't deserve; and
(b) don't need as the league leaders in doping sports science to aid muscle growth and recovery.
After racking my brain, I came upon the solution by asking the big question - "what would Jesus do?"
Just kidding, I asked myself "what would Pro Wrestling do?" and the answer is a triple threat match between the Seahawks, Patriots and Colts. The NFL can figure out the logistics and thank me after.
No comments:
Post a Comment