Federer vs Soderling

So, Federer beat Soderling this morning, three straight sets. I watched one before I had to go to work and, despite its outward appearances, it was close. I mean tie breakers going all the way the the last point on two sets? It was intense. In the end, Federer prevailed. 23 Aces. What can you do? He played amazingly, both of them did. But in the end it circled round and all effort and preparation went out the window. It wasn't important. Federer is just a better player.

Federer

Roger Federer just demolished Garcia-Lopez. Danced around him, three straight sets, and made him look like he belonged on a highschool court, JV. Well, maybe he fought back a little...

BIG UPSET

So I forgot to post this yesterdy, but I did watch what ESPN2 chose to show and it was pretty amazing. American Jesse Levine, 22, ranked 133rd, beat Russia's Marat Safin. Safin is ranked 14th and was the clear favorite for the match. Upsets in tennis are rare and this was quite the surprise. But it's great to see an American move up in the ranks! Hopefully he can keep it going but he is quite the underdog, no titles, only 22, ranked 133rd!
















Photo Courtesy of the AELTC

Murray vs Kendrick

So I'm watching this incredible match. Murray and Kendrick are tied at a set a piece and the play is intensifying. ESPN2, in all its absurdity, has decided that this is the perfect moment to flash to one of the women's' matches that I absolutely do not want to watch. It's not that I'm sexist, or a pig, or against sexual equality in sports, but it's round 1. It's 2 players I don't care about, and the Murray-Kendrick match is GOOD.

But, tennis is only on this channel. Shit.

Results

The results of the first day are up and I'd suggest reading them at Wimbledon's website as many newspapers and other sources have merely posted the terrible messes that they had in print.

Djokovic, a top seed (4), did go on to win and will be facing Germany's Simon Greul in the second round. Sweden's Robin Soderling will also advance. He beat Rafa Nadal at the French Open, but lost to Federer in the final. The consensus is that the final round will go down to Soderling and Federer, but we'll have to watch them go through 2 more matches before it's decided. I wonder how it feels to be one of the other players, important enough to be ranked, but not enough to be talked about and foreseen as a winner. I would think it would add a psychological barrier when you go into a match and everyone is expecting you to lose. Anyways, first round continues tomorrow.

Match Update

Benneteau lost his footing and as he's had knee surgery a trainer is checking him out, apparently he's worried about his hip.   Still, Djokovic is leading 3-love this round and is just playing better tennis.  

On an aside, ESPN2 is annoying and surprising me for not airing Federer's match...

Also, play just recommenced, he seems alright.  

The Wimbledon is today! I'm watching Centre Court, J.Benneteau v. N.Djokovic, two players who you likely do not know. It's hard to tell who will win the match, but I'm betting on Djokovic, he's making smart plays and he's reading Benneteau's style and using that knowledge to his advantage. On the other hand, his skill seems to be lacking a bit as his follow through doesn't deliver. Well, at least the though is there. I know these are the least exciting rounds, but there's nothing else to watch so turn it on, ESPN2.

2 men, 28 Majors

So, Federer gave an interesting interview at Wimbledon today. Most of the questions were about his rivals, but the most interesting one equated him and Tiger Woods. Both players have 14 majors and as Roger says, they are the face of their sports. I think this is true, but it also shows you how one person can enamor the crowd and essentially overshadow the sport itself. Look at Tiger For instance, he's not winning so why is that the lead story? My guess is just a guess, but I think it is probable. With either player it is clear that they don't play in the most popular sport. Therefore, it is less likely that anyone would know who they are, but as they've both been breakthrough players with advertisers, TV spots, and general fame they shatter the limitations of their less popular sports. Basically, these sports have a limited range of fans, but these men are so popular that they draw attention of people who would otherwise not care about it at all. The two have also appeared in ads together and seem to be friendly, which I suppose is natural.

photo from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01203/CONSUMER_Adverts_T_1203733c.jpg

That's the old gillete ad, obviously. I got the image from google so that's the link if you want to check out more of them. It also came up with photos of Federer and Woods together, playing golf, hanging out, polishing majors, you know, regular stuff that guys do together. I know when I'm chilling with my friends we always polish our trophies, don't you? I'm sure they compare headshots too. That would be sweet.

Photo from tennis.com

Oh, and I logged onto ticketmaster to check out the prices of Wimbledon tickets, only 40 pounds, surprisingly low, but I guess it is tennis.

Breaking News and Knees

Seems that Rafael Nadal's knee tendinitis has finally gotten to him and he has withdrawn from the Wimbledon. He is also quoted in saying that the injury is not chronic and in the longterm he will be fine, which is good for him as he is only 23. The decision, again thinking longterm, is good. Playing through an injury is often deemed tough, but it seems to be mixed with a large helping of stupid.

Nadal

So the Spaniard says he will play, unwilling to let his Wimbledon title go without a fight. I think for fans this is great news, not because anyone likes Nadal in particular, but because watching a rematch between him and Federer will be great.

This is the official word from his doctor and is from gototennisblogl.com: After the appropriate tests (MRI, Ultrasound scans and gammagraphy) Mr. Rafael Nadal suffers from insertion tendonitis in the superior end of both kneecaps with a light osseous edema. His treatment will involve oral anti-inflammatories, physiotherapy as well as progressive muscular exercises for both quadriceps’s. Following the 48-hour treatment, Mr. Nadal will gradually get back into training.”Read more: http://www.gototennisblog.com/2009/06/09/rafael-nadal-plans-to-play-wimbledon/#ixzz0IoCJYfQ5&C

It seems that the rematch will favor Federer who loves to play on grass, as opposed to Nadal who I believe prefers clay. Either way, I'm sure it will only fuel the debate as to who the best player is, but I think even if Federer wins it won't be clean. The injury, surely, will be Nadal's scape goat, which is sad. No one has said it yet, but I would be surprised if it doesn't come out. These school yard excuses always do. To top it off, he will be worse off if he loses, sensibly, but I'm sure it will be full of irony. Consider this headline, "GREATEST TENNIS PLAYER ALL TIME? ROGER FEDERER LOSES TO AN INJURED RAFAEL NADAL. Well, or any headline along those lines, but you get the idea.

FAMILY FEUD

Oh, and to qualm all of Nadals fears with his recovering knees and the fast approaching Wimbledon is his coach, Uncle Toni. Apparently, Uncle Toni, who is actually family, stated on a radio station that Rafa (Rafael) is two levels below Federer. He put Federer at the top, named a second group of four guys, then he alloted a level for his nephew. It seems he is saying that his nephew has a lot of room to grow, he is only 23, but the timing could be better to say the least. If I was in the same position I think there might be one less Uncle in the world, but alas, Rafa has made no comment on the matter.

Photo by BERTRAND GUAY/AFP/Getty Images via Daylife.

Straying From Tennis For Class: The Vincent Paper

"Equitable Media Coverage of Female and
Male Athletes: Is there a solution? "

According to Vincent, the media places more value on males than females in its sports coverage. For those of us who consume sports media, the veracity of these words rings clear, whether it’s the smallest story of the day or the biggest headline. I think the most persuasive argument he presents is within the theories. Essentially, that is that newspapers are not proponents of cultural change because they are driven by monetary principal. So, newspapers are not inclined to further women’s portrayal in sports (justifying them socially and equitably) because readers want to hear about their favorite “strong, active, powerful” male athletes (Vincent 2005).
After the theories, an intense elaboration of what makes the coverage unbalanced ensues. Basically, the positioning and prevalence of male athletic photos, the quantity of articles, and the overall coverage of men’s sports overshadows the coverage of female media coverage in all of the same areas. Vincent also elaborates that the “qualitative” coverage of women is greatly lacking. Basically, if there is a picture of a woman than it’s often posed or boring where as men always get action shots.
Women, as he and his three pages of sources see it, are depicted in stereotypical roles that often accentuate beauty, sexual prowess, and other conventional aspects that altogether avoid how the women actually play their respective sport, which should be the most important aspect. This leads coverage away from less attractive women who may even be seen as androgynous. The result is women enjoying a fractional spotlight, approximately 10 percent of the total coverage in fact (Vincent 2005).

Vincent enumerates an array of sources that detail how this is sexist and conforms to society’s standards to berate women etc. To me, the explanation is, as explained in class, Occam’s Razor. Maybe, the media covers men’s sports more than women’s just because that is in fact what the public wants to see. Essentially, it’s more fun to watch men’s sports than women’s. It isn’t that women’s sports are less important, although from a financial standpoint that is sadly, the truth. It is just that men are, even if Vincent’s article cites this sort of talk as sexist, naturally stronger and faster. It isn’t a slur to demean women it is just a fact of nature. Men have, clearly, more testosterone which equates into more muscle. They are also on average taller and in the end this creates a much faster paced sports environment. Clearly, it’s more fun to watch a high-speed sporting event (disagree if you want, but popular opinion will override you). Therefore, we fall back on Occam’s Razor, the simplest prevails. Additionally, looking back on day one when everyone recounted their favorite teams I do not recall,, even from the women in our class, one female team.
So, do I think Vincent is being realistic in his qualitative and quantitative equalization? No. It is not realistic to believe that the masses will suddenly decide that they want to watch a 140 LB women on the defensive line instead of a 300 LB man, or the same sort of switch in a number of other sports. And yes, I think it makes sense that women are portrayed more often in gender appropriate sports than in the inappropriate ones which Vincent lists as “field hockey, softball and rugby” (Vincent 2005). To me, this list itself is asinine. Softball is definitely a gender appropriate sport. It is what female athletes play all through high school and college and I know there are male summer leagues, but the sport is dominated by females. Now, putting that aside, the other two present similar problems, which stray far from gender issues. Possibly, if not probably, Rugby is more popular in say England or a similar country, but I still believe that it hardly gets media coverage anyways. Additionally, considering that Vincent is from Alabama this alternative answer that he is referring to European sports seems unlikely. Now, Field Hockey may be a more appropriately popular sport but it is still far from the top. Honestly, I’m surprised that basketball did not make it into this discussion, especially when you consider the dichotomy between the WNBA and the NBA. I am almost positive that everyone in class could name at least one player in the NBA, but naming one from the WNBA would prove a greater challenge by far. I could not name one myself and I think that this single instance characterizes the difference between men and women’s sports, but yet, I do not agree with Vincent or the incredibly slanted, feminists views he has expounded. I do agree to a certain extent that this could change and the media is to blame. It just seems that the chances of this happening seem slim.

So this month's Sports Illustrated has a fairly long article about the French Open. Essentially, it presents the best players of Tennis through the history of the sport and makes a good case for Roger Federer, but mentions 4 or 5 times that Rafael Nadal may not agree, or other forms of Nadal being better for whatever reason (13-7 Record over Federer, a few embarassing matches for Federer? Well, draw your own conclusions, but I think it's important to mention the players have beaten eachother on different occasions)

It's easy to say Federer is better than past players, specifically Laver and Sampra, but I'm guessing it may be because they aren't around to argue. Looking at the numbers Federer beats them but as the SI article points out the conditions were much different. Courts were made differently, rackets, shoes, you know, basically everything. It was back in the day before the explosion of performance enhancing drugs too, not that I think any of the players take steroids persay, but the advancements of protein powders and other legal substances definitely demarcate new and old. If you go back to the numbers Federer beats Nadal as well, but that was my point about Laver and Sampra, how do you measure the best player by numbers?

Oh, and on a lighter note a deranged, balding man rushed the court in an attempt to give Federer, wait for it, a hat and a flag. His generosity was reciprocated by three guys man handling him. One had a painful hold on the mans forearm, another had the end of one leg, and the third was attempting to pull the man in for a hug as they literally carried him out. Clearly, the fan thought that the flag would really come in handy during the match. And it wasn't like the small memorial day size flag. It was big. Obviously, the idiot hadn't thought this through. I mean really, if you're a fan of an athlete at least bring him something useful. Or, rather, leave him alone. Anyways, the photo is hilarious but I unfortunately cannot can't find a digital version.

Photo from Sportsillustrated.com

This is from gototennisblog.com, just a highlight of the weekend

AEGON CHAMPIONSHIPS - THE QUEEN’S CLUB, LONDON - 2009 TENNIS TV SCHEDULE

All times EASTERN.

Friday, June 12
7:30 am - 3:30 pm: Queen’s Club Quarterfinals - Tennis Channel - LIVE
5:00 pm - 1:00 am: Queen’s Club Quarterfinals - Tennis Channel - repeat

Saturday, June 13
8:30 am - 1:30 pm: Queen’s Club Semifinals - Tennis Channel - LIVE
8:00 pm - 10:30 pm: Queen’s Club Semifinals - Tennis Channel - repeat
11:00 pm - 1:30 am: Queen’s Clube Semifinals - Tennis Channel - repeat

Sunday, June 14
9:00 am - 11:30 am: Queen’s Club Final - Tennis Channel - LIVE
1:00 pm - 3:30 pm: Queen’s Club Final - Tennis Channel - repeat
8:00 pm - 10:30 pm: Queen’s Club Final - Tennis Channel - repeat
11:00 pm - 1:30 am: Queen’s Club Final - Tennis Channel - repeat

Rafael Nadal.... More whining

Oh, and in addition to Federer, Rafael Nadal will likely play at Wimbledon as well, despite his incessant whining about knee pain and the like. He says he will be doing physical therapy in preparation even though he has had this pain for a while and chose to play through many tournaments anyways. But, he did step down from the impending Queen's Club Tournament and will instead be preparing for the more important Wimbledon. I suppose it's likely that his knee pain is real and should be taken care of, but as an unmonitored blogger I feel calling him a whiner is warranted and thankfully, my opinion is the one that matters.

The First of Eighteen

Hey there,

This is my first post.  I'm, as my profile, URL, and blog title state, Kevin Rutan.  This Fall marks the beginning of my last year at the University of Iowa and it has been great, but I am ready to move on.  I am grateful, however, for what I've gained here in every facet of my life, especially in the academic realm thanks to the UIs' writing programs.

Currently, I'm pulling everything together to prep for Graduation and more importantly, for what comes after.  My plans are to take the LSAT in the Fall and hopefully get accepted somewhere.  You know, anywhere that will have me haha.  Ostensibly, that will buy me 3 more years of the limbo between High School and the working world.  With the slew of medical advances that explode every week and the dwindling social security I will probably have to work 60 years before I can retire so i am, for good reason, in no rush to finish.  

Oh, and I am currently employed at Sprint so if anyone needs a phone feel free to ask.  I work for commission only so I'd love to sell you one.  Essentially, you get a good deal and I hopefully get to pay rent : )  Anyways, I'm not trying to make this a plug, just thought it was funny.  I always inundate myself in my work, whatever it is, and cell phones have become a large part of my daily life, especially online.  

This is the phone I want.  It's the new Palm Pre, pretty much blows the Iphone out of the water, but to each his own.  

Now, I suppose I should stop running off on tangents and get to the point.  With the Wimbledon coming up I chose Tennis and essentially any of the hype that will be surrounding it.   I've found a great blog that has the collective TV schedule and an aggregation of everything Tennis along with articles, videos, and a multitude of other great sources for anyone who's interested. 

Right now, the sports news, well the tiny blip allotted to tennis, is a flurry with Roger Federer, obviously.  He's won his 14th major and that is crazy.  Anyways, Nike made a pretty funny video and it's on Youtube so I'll post a link.  It's called "The Roger Federer Equation" and it's, well, you'll see. 

That's all for now.