Lately there's been a lot of fish-wrapping dedicated to Vijay Singh's refusal to play with Annika Sorenstam. And his, now typical and pathetic "I was taken out of context". No you weren't! Stand by your comments you squibb!
Patrick Smith has also mentioned it in Today's Article. For what it's worth, I agree with both Smith and Eldrich Tigger who suggest she should play more than the one scheduled tournament. Let's see exactly how good she is. One weekend won't tell us anything.
Robert Lusetich also has an article in today's Australian. Unlinked of course. I can't be bothered navigating around their website in a vain search for an article I know I'll never find.
Anyhoo, in making his point about gender matches he tenders the oft repeated precedent of the Billy Jean King v Bobby Riggs match from 1973. Jaysus! Can we stop that analogy. Better still, let's terminate it with extreme prejudice and bury it deep down in a mass grave somewhere in Siberia.
That match was between the world's Number 1 female player, playing at the height of her powers and an aging, never-was, loud mouth blowhard. A dickhead to boot. There was never any doubt that Little Miss Moffatt would win. She was a much better player and probably would have beaten him in his prime. If you really want to settle that argument put up Lleyton Hewitt against Serena Williams. Watch him flog her 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 while watching Rocky, eating hot-dogs and sculling beers at end changes.
Golf's different. Sorenstam's not in danger of getting aced or tackled or out-sprinted or clubbed behind the ear. From a physical standpoint, all she's got to worry about is her driving length. She's bound to be shorter off the tee but there's nothing, at the moment, to suggest her game will be technically lacking. If it is, let's find out what her short-comings are. Now we get a chance to see her and the best male golfers go head to head in their prime and therefore make a valid comparison.
However, you would expect the blokes to win, but you won't know unless you put the match on.
Patrick also makes mention of Gabriel Zombie and his refusal to stand by his comments last week regarding Melbourne coach Neil Daniher. I agree with him that the Zombie should have stood by his comments. There's nothing at all wrong with the President indicating to the footy public that a losing coach is under pressure. As Daniher himself said, "It's bloody obvious!"
However, it's typical of Smith's nasty streak that he tries to make a point out of the Zombie's subsequent apology to the footy department. Maybe he was struggling to fill his word quota. There's nothing at all wrong with Zombie fronting the players to reassure them there's no chance of any board upheaval and apologising for any indication to the contrary. Smith's assertion that Zombie "is now contrite about something he swore he didn't say" is typical media nitpicking.
I've no doubt the Zombie over-emphasised his initial position. No doubt that he talked it down in a clumsy way. No problem with him apologising to the players. BUT. There's no doubt that the essence of what he said was correct. In fact, "The bleedin' obvious". The media could have, maybe should have, treated it as such and recognised that a president berating his players is not indicative of the end of the world but more a case of "What's new!"
Coincidentally on a completely unrelated tangent. Nothing at all to do with anything. Not trying to deflect the spotlight away from Melbourne....
Ian Dicker is Under The Pump. Shane Crawford can't Handle The Pressure. Peter Schwab is Feeling The Heat. And the Hawks Plunge To New Depths.
Comments