Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[poondu]

On an irresistible and awe-inspiring ascent

Nirmal Shekar

Going into the year's first Grand Slam championship Federer has some icy peaks in his sights 

Sampras was 8-2 in Grand Slam finals at a corresponding stage in his career
Nadal, Hewitt and Safin are the only other players in the draw with more than one Slam title
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
REACHING FOR GREATNESS: The story of men's tennis itself, over the last three years, is nothing more than the near-continuous celebration of Federer's epic journey.


Sport is strife. Sport is a constant struggle in search of that elusive edge, physical and mental. Sport is competition featuring near-equals — the reason why we call sports contests matches. Most of all, sport is about conflict; for, sport without conflict is like champagne without the fizz.

All very well, but when it comes to men's tennis we might have got it all wrong — to be precise, got the tense wrong. Fierce competition, gladiatorial battles between well-matched players, dramatic races for the year-end No.1 ranking...

Ah, those were the days — days when men's tennis at the very top had it all.

To consign to history the very essence of what sport is all about, and with an unrivalled mastery of one's art turn oneself into an all-court wizard nonpareil takes some doing. But, in a little more than three years, Federer has accomplished precisely this.

Lofty heights


Going into the year's first Grand Slam championship, the 2007 Australian Open that begins on Monday, Federer has the icy peaks in his sights. Aged 25 and already in possession of nine Grand Slam singles titles, the Swiss master can look into the horizon and spot the game's legends — Bill Tilden (10), Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver (11), Roy Emerson (12) and Pete Sampras (14).

Federer's ascent towards those lofty heights has been at once irresistible and awe-inspiring; and the story of men's tennis itself, over the last three years, is nothing more than the near-continuous celebration of one man's epic journey.

In 10 Grand Slam finals over four years, only one man has managed to beat Federer. Rafael Nadal of Spain accomplished that feat at the French Open last year. It is a record that compares favourably with the very best. For, at age 25, coming into the 1997 Australian Open, Sampras, exactly 10 years older than Federer, was 8-2 in Grand Slam finals.

But, then, it must be said in favour of Sampras that the great man competed with all-time greats and multiple Grand Slam-winners (Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Jim Courier) in their prime. On the other hand, in this tournament itself, there are only three men apart from the world champion who have won more than one Grand Slam title — Nadal, Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin have won two.

Well within reach


While Mount Sampras is some distance away, nobody who's followed men's tennis over the last few years would discount Federer's chances of conquering the tallest of peaks — not even the American Andy Roddick, who, at last, saw a sliver of light on Saturday when he beat the world champion in the Kooyong final.

That, of course, was an invitation event and the result will not go into the record books. Yet, for Roddick, after eight straight losses to Federer, the three-set victory must have come as some consolation.

The big-serving American, now coached by Jimmy Connors, has played some epic matches at Melbourne Park. (Connors's mother's funeral was on Saturday and he is yet to join Roddick here). If Roddick, seeded six, makes his way to the semifinals, he would expect Federer to be standing in his path, yet again.

It was at that stage — semifinals — that the enigmatic Safin outlasted Federer in an unforgettable thriller here two years ago. Matchpoint down, Safin hit a breathtaking lob before clawing his way to a dramatic victory.

Safin, on that day, clearly believed that he could beat the champion. Roddick, and a handful of others who might covet this title, would be hoping now that self-belief doesn't part with them when the big occasion arrives — if and when it does.

It has been a while since Safin played that brand of tennis and he might need to raise his level if he hopes to get past Roddick in the third round here.

In the other half of the draw, Nadal can spot a few trouble-makers: the fast improving Andy Murray of Britain, James Blake, David Nalbandian and the home hope Hewitt, the last named struggling to get over injury problems and an acrimonious split with his coach Roger Rasheed.

Open field


The women's championship seems rather more open. While Maria Sharapova and the defending champion Amelie Mauresmo, the top two seeds, would clearly fancy their chances, Kim Clijsters, in her last appearance here — if she sticks to her retirement plans — and Martina Hingis, both figuring in the top half of the draw, have the game to beat anyone on their day.

Former champion Serena Williams, unseeded — it is the first time in history that no American woman is among the seeds here — would back herself, too, if she can negotiate her way past her first few opponents.

For Sania Mirza, this is where it all began, two years ago. She's come a long way, since then, and the Indian will play Olga Savchuk from Ukraine in the first round. Savchuk, aged 19, finished in the top 100 for the first time last year.

If she wins two rounds, Sania might get the chance to take on Martina Hingis in the third.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/15/stories/2007011507882100.htm

[poondu]

A virus of the mind

To view sport from a national or regional perspective in this day and age seems almost anachronistic, writes NIRMAL SHEKAR 




YOU know what is the best thing that can happen to sport and to the wholesome enjoyment of sporting drama as a truly elevating spectacle? Simple. Ban national flags from all great sports venues, including the Olympics.

This is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, perhaps not even yours even if you are just old enough to be able to read this, but it doesn't hurt to dream, to dream like John Lennon did, does it? Imagine if there were no flags at the Grand Slams in tennis, at the Test matches and the World Cup in cricket, at the popular football championships including the World Cup and, most of all, at the Olympics. Imagine if we could identify with plain and simple excellence instead of with national colours.

Imagine if we could lose ourselves in the transcendental majesty of an individual's game, no matter his colour or creed or whatever, and no matter that the performance means our national side is taking a beating. Imagine, too, that sometime in the future people may come to view sport as we've come to view great art and music.

Would you love Mozart or Schubert any more than you happen to do now if they were Indian? Would you love M.S. Subbulakshmi or Pandit Ravi Shankar any less than you happen to do now if they were not Indian? Do we carry flags to concerts? A Sachin Tendulkar or a Roger Federer or a Zinedine Zidane may not rank alongside the great masters of music and art. But if you were a true connoisseur of sport, if you constantly seek a deeper and more nuanced enjoyment of sporting spectacle, you would have no objection to keeping the national flags away from the sports stage.

Atavistic


To view sport from a national or regional perspective in this day and age seems almost anachronistic. It is because of this, it is because the flags and allied symbols of group identity ignite atavistic passions in the stands that we are still not able to nudge George Orwell in his grave and say with a straight face: Sorry, George, you were wrong. Serious sport is not war minus the shooting. It is something rather more profound and soul-lifting.

Jingoism


Jingoistic chest-thumping and drum-beating in sports arenas may come in different forms, some more acceptable — and rather less primordial — than the others in a civilised society. But they can all be traced to the same roots. Whatever version it is, it is nothing but a glorified, modern-day brand of tribalism — something that has no place in sport if sport is to distance itself from its evolutionary roots.

We are all hard-wired to identify with group symbols that come in many forms — the most potent one being the flag. While it might still be useful to rally under the flag for a truly great national cause, to use national colours to help fire our own passions on a sports stage is at once ridiculous and dangerous.

Ugly incident


All these thoughts were triggered by an ugly incident at the Australian Open tennis championship in Melbourne Park on Monday. Groups of so-called "ethnic" fans (Serbian and Croatian) waving flags — many of them drunk, too — set off an ugly brawl and over 150 young men were evicted from the stadium by security personnel and police.

Grand Slam tennis is the last place you'd expect something like this to happen. But then, the truth is no place on earth may be immune to the rather nasty virus of the mind — nationalistic frenzy at sports venues — that needs to be eradicated immediately.

The truth is simple: the instincts that evolution put in us and that were important for our survival and `fitness' in another age deep into our past as a species have lingered on through all the cultural evolution to haunt us in a globalised world and in an era of space travel and Artificial Intelligence.

Imagine if we could all say `no' to national flags at sports venues! Imagine, because imagination always precedes action

http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/17/stories/2007011701232300.htm

[pieterSAN]

Poondu,

Thanks for posting those articles, in particular, the  interesting perspective from from Shekar. I used to think that the only good thing about having nations and geographical boundaries was that intensity that we get in professional sports. I have always been anti-nationalism but sometimes it enhances the competitive spirit in which the game is played and brings out the best in athletes.

[pieterSAN]

Monfils beat Baghdatis and setup an encounter with Gasquet. It should be good one (either today or tomorrow).

[poondu]

Roddick Safin match should also be interesting.

[kban1]

poondu:

where had you been hiding all these months ? 

Just kidding -- you obviously (along with a few others) have an eye for spotting interesting articles. Keep posting 

[poondu]

Mirza loses in the second round

[LosingNow]

I watched Serena's match late last night....

The euphesims used by announcers (lack of training, not in top shape etc) to indirectly describe "how FAT she had become?" were hilarious!! Man, has she "grown" or what...I think she will  be lucky to get to Quarters.

[LosingNow]

Mirza loses in the second round

Sudzz had it right.. overrated!! Hey, she is selling shampoos and pepsi..who gives a damn about winning!

[fineleg]

Mirza loses in the second round

Sudzz had it right.. overrated!! Hey, she is selling shampoos and pepsi..who gives a damn about winning!

our cricketers follow that too...ads money flows in ...who cares abt cricket?

[MockTurtle]

Mirza loses in the second round

Sudzz had it right.. overrated!! Hey, she is selling shampoos and pepsi..who gives a damn about winning!

well, she has done much more than any other indian woman in tennis has achieved and hence the drama and of course, the glamour. i find her too cocky and too satisfied with her achievement - this is based on some interviews i've seen of her. there was one abt her wimbledon experience where just playing in the centre court seemed to be the pinnacle of achievement for her. she came across very satisfied with just THAT!

contrast that with this -

Chess: Humpy gets first endorsement deal 
Radhika Iyer



Monday, January 8, 2007 (Hyderabad):

In 2005, Koneru Humpy, for all her achievements, was passed over by the Bank of Baroda for a sponsorship, as the company preferred Rahul Dravid as a more saleable star.

But two Asiad golds later, Humpy's first advertisement for a property developer will certainly go a long way in helping her achieve her target of becoming a Super Grand Master.

After winning the gold medal at the Doha Asian games, she was approached for the modeling assignment, and the 19-year-old says she is open to doing many more.

"I want to do more ads. I see cricketers and tennis players do it. The game becomes very popular. I want even Chess to be popular in the country. After all Chess was born in India," said Koneru Humpy, Asian Games Gold-Medallist.

But selling products, the Vijaywada girl promises will not be at the cost of her performance in chess. Humpy is currently 33 ELO points away from being called "Super Grandmaster Champion" in the world of chess.

"This year I want to cross 2600 points in my rating. If that happens, I will get a good chance to be in the top 100 of men ranking list. Every single point is precious and I need 33, so I have to work very hard," said Koneru Humpy, Chess Player.

Humpy says that not having a sponsor till July last year affected her ratings as she missed playing many international tournaments.

However, India's queen of chess hopes that 2007 will be different, and her first assault will be at the Dubai Open in April.

 

 

[sudzz]

Mirza loses in the second round

Sudzz had it right.. overrated!! Hey, she is selling shampoos and pepsi..who gives a damn about winning!

well, she has done much more than any other indian woman in tennis has achieved and hence the drama and of course, the glamour. i find her too cocky and too satisfied with her achievement - this is based on some interviews i've seen of her. there was one abt her wimbledon experience where just playing in the centre court seemed to be the pinnacle of achievement for her. she came across very satisfied with just THAT!

contrast that with this -

Chess: Humpy gets first endorsement deal 
Radhika Iyer



Monday, January 8, 2007 (Hyderabad):

In 2005, Koneru Humpy, for all her achievements, was passed over by the Bank of Baroda for a sponsorship, as the company preferred Rahul Dravid as a more saleable star.

But two Asiad golds later, Humpy's first advertisement for a property developer will certainly go a long way in helping her achieve her target of becoming a Super Grand Master.

After winning the gold medal at the Doha Asian games, she was approached for the modeling assignment, and the 19-year-old says she is open to doing many more.

"I want to do more ads. I see cricketers and tennis players do it. The game becomes very popular. I want even Chess to be popular in the country. After all Chess was born in India," said Koneru Humpy, Asian Games Gold-Medallist.

But selling products, the Vijaywada girl promises will not be at the cost of her performance in chess. Humpy is currently 33 ELO points away from being called "Super Grandmaster Champion" in the world of chess.

"This year I want to cross 2600 points in my rating. If that happens, I will get a good chance to be in the top 100 of men ranking list. Every single point is precious and I need 33, so I have to work very hard," said Koneru Humpy, Chess Player.

Humpy says that not having a sponsor till July last year affected her ratings as she missed playing many international tournaments.

However, India's queen of chess hopes that 2007 will be different, and her first assault will be at the Dubai Open in April.

 

 

MT once againg you have gone and found a great post...

Its indeed sad that she has to still fight her way through. She is no less than Vishy Anand in my opinion in terms of sheer skill and talent. But what she lacks is the exposure and therefore the image.

I am sorry to digress but I would like to share that when IMG setup shop in India they talked about developing sport in India (Jim Courier was down in Hyd talking about developing a centre of sporting excellence). Now IMG has changed its CEO and Iam sure Jim C is not anywhere in the same hemisphere as India is,.

Coming back the above paragraph was because it was around the time that Humpy was making waves as a young kid excelling in chess and someone had infact suggested that she and Gopichand should be the first few people signed on by IMG but they wanted cricket, football and hockey players no one had the time for her.

IMG was in the race for Sania as well and lost eventually to Globosport but see how Sania has repaid and how Humpy might have..the only chess star that has endorsed anything was Vishy Anand and NIIT.

If I could and had the means I will not mind sponsoring (even if it is just one flight from place A to B) her but I think the reason for her not getting deals is not because chess is a unknown sport. (Imagine this out of a billion even if 1% follow chess thats a million strong audience)...

The reason according to me is that she is a typical south Indian girl..i.e translated as dark, not very well groomed (as per standard set by other glamour dolls), does not wear clothes that either reveal her clevage or her other assets and all in all is a girl who is conservative. Contrast to her to other sport stars used by Indian media..

Sania-Good looking (I dont think so but thats a minority even on the DG)
Ashwini Nachappa-Fairly ok looking and definetly glamorous
PT Usha-Fairly late in life and for some non descript brands barring one or two
Nirupama Mankad-Good looking and generally attractive

Cant think of others.

I dont think Koneru will get major deals either because lets face it for popular products they need a pretty face and body, while she may have them she definetly flaunts only her sport/skill and not her body. I respect her for that!!

[MockTurtle]

MT once againg you have gone and found a great post...

Its indeed sad that she has to still fight her way through. She is no less than Vishy Anand in my opinion in terms of sheer skill and talent. But what she lacks is the exposure and therefore the image.

I am sorry to digress but I would like to share that when IMG setup shop in India they talked about developing sport in India (Jim Courier was down in Hyd talking about developing a centre of sporting excellence). Now IMG has changed its CEO and Iam sure Jim C is not anywhere in the same hemisphere as India is,.

Coming back the above paragraph was because it was around the time that Humpy was making waves as a young kid excelling in chess and someone had infact suggested that she and Gopichand should be the first few people signed on by IMG but they wanted cricket, football and hockey players no one had the time for her.

IMG was in the race for Sania as well and lost eventually to Globosport but see how Sania has repaid and how Humpy might have..the only chess star that has endorsed anything was Vishy Anand and NIIT.

If I could and had the means I will not mind sponsoring (even if it is just one flight from place A to B) her but I think the reason for her not getting deals is not because chess is a unknown sport. (Imagine this out of a billion even if 1% follow chess thats a million strong audience)...

The reason according to me is that she is a typical south Indian girl..i.e translated as dark, not very well groomed (as per standard set by other glamour dolls), does not wear clothes that either reveal her clevage or her other assets and all in all is a girl who is conservative. Contrast to her to other sport stars used by Indian media..

Sania-Good looking (I dont think so but thats a minority even on the DG)
Ashwini Nachappa-Fairly ok looking and definetly glamorous
PT Usha-Fairly late in life and for some non descript brands barring one or two
Nirupama Mankad-Good looking and generally attractive

Cant think of others.

I dont think Koneru will get major deals either because lets face it for popular products they need a pretty face and body, while she may have them she definetly flaunts only her sport/skill and not her body. I respect her for that!!

you've hit the nail on the head - unfortunately, glamour sells and what is "beautiful" has been defined by the typical western norm. women who can flaunt it and don't mind it, obviously capitalize on this - why tennis, look the attires of female athletes, not to mention, the beach volley-ball. it is not mere sports anymore, it is all "glamour sports". of course, it is heartening to see the likes of Clijsters and Davenport amidst this spectacle.

some time back, i was on chat here during a cricket match and kass naidoo, the SA presenter was annoucing the awards. i find her very articulate and think she does an awesome job, but strangely, the first comment i heard on chat was "oh, that ugly naidoo girl is on". in such a world, where does this very simple looking, non-glamourous koneru humpy stand a chance!

[keep-it-cool]

I do not agree entirely. Of course, glamour does play a major role in landing endorsements. But an even more important factor is the sport involved and how visible the sportsperson concerned is likely to be. However good Koneru may be, she plays a sport that is not followed enough in the country (our significant success notwithstanding) and, more importantly, is not as visible as something like cricket or tennis or soccer.

How many of us look forward to any kind of live telecast of chess matches?. I am an avid chess player .. used to play very regularly till some time back .. but the only chess event that I remember watching was the live telecast of the Anand - Kasparov title match. And that too was late at night and, moreover, chess is not a sport that is very easy to view.

Saina is ranked higher in global badminton rankings than Sania is in tennis - but how much do we see of her on television (and I am not talking about ads here) or in the print media? In this context, why should advertisers or media planners run after a badminton player?

Even a cursory look at the men's sports throw up the same thing. Not every Indian cricketer who endorses products is conventionally good looking. Salil Ankola was an also ran cricketer - he is now doing very well for himself in Indian television, was reasonably good looking, but has hardly got any ads worth mentioning. Bikram Saluja was a tennis player, who was definitely much better looking than Leander Paes ... but Leander definitely got many more endorsements than him. Rajyawardhan Rathore or Jaspal Rana are very good sportspersons who have brought glory to India ... but they do not appear in too many ads. And, Rathore is quite smart and presentable too.

Has any other sports federation in the country done enough to make their sports visible as the BCCI has? Given that, why should media outlets of companies take invisible stars as their brand ambassadors. They are not here to do charity.

The most important thing in order to get endorsements is how visible you are. And rightly so - if you are not visible at frequent intervals, you are not going to help sell too much - irrespective of your talent. Of equally visible sportspersons, the one with more talent stands a very good chance of getting more deals. And rightly so. One should not forget that endorsements are not a reward for a sportsperson's talent .. they are for selling the product ... and media will use those who they believe can sell their product the best. And, rightly so. If the paying public, we who buy all the products change in what grabs our attention, media will follow suit. Otherwise, why should they?

[MockTurtle]

I do not agree entirely. Of course, glamour does play a major role in landing endorsements. But an even more important factor is the sport involved and how visible the sportsperson concerned is likely to be. However good Koneru may be, she plays a sport that is not followed enough in the country (our significant success notwithstanding) and, more importantly, is not as visible as something like cricket or tennis or soccer.

How many of us look forward to any kind of live telecast of chess matches?. I am an avid chess player .. used to play very regularly till some time back .. but the only chess event that I remember watching was the live telecast of the Anand - Kasparov title match. And that too was late at night and, moreover, chess is not a sport that is very easy to view.

Saina is ranked higher in global badminton rankings than Sania is in tennis - but how much do we see of her on television (and I am not talking about ads here) or in the print media? In this context, why should advertisers or media planners run after a badminton player?

Even a cursory look at the men's sports throw up the same thing. Not every Indian cricketer who endorses products is conventionally good looking. Salil Ankola was an also ran cricketer - he is now doing very well for himself in Indian television, was reasonably good looking, but has hardly got any ads worth mentioning. Bikram Saluja was a tennis player, who was definitely much better looking than Leander Paes ... but Leander definitely got many more endorsements than him. Rajyawardhan Rathore or Jaspal Rana are very good sportspersons who have brought glory to India ... but they do not appear in too many ads. And, Rathore is quite smart and presentable too.

Has any other sports federation in the country done enough to make their sports visible as the BCCI has? Given that, why should media outlets of companies take invisible stars as their brand ambassadors. They are not here to do charity.

The most important thing in order to get endorsements is how visible you are. And rightly so - if you are not visible at frequent intervals, you are not going to help sell too much - irrespective of your talent. Of equally visible sportspersons, the one with more talent stands a very good chance of getting more deals. And rightly so. One should not forget that endorsements are not a reward for a sportsperson's talent .. they are for selling the product ... and media will use those who they believe can sell their product the best. And, rightly so. If the paying public, we who buy all the products change in what grabs our attention, media will follow suit. Otherwise, why should they?

k-i-c, you have made good points but i was talking mainly about women. don't you think 'glamour' plays a far bigger role there?

[sudzz]

I do not agree entirely. Of course, glamour does play a major role in landing endorsements. But an even more important factor is the sport involved and how visible the sportsperson concerned is likely to be. However good Koneru may be, she plays a sport that is not followed enough in the country (our significant success notwithstanding) and, more importantly, is not as visible as something like cricket or tennis or soccer.

How many of us look forward to any kind of live telecast of chess matches?. I am an avid chess player .. used to play very regularly till some time back .. but the only chess event that I remember watching was the live telecast of the Anand - Kasparov title match. And that too was late at night and, moreover, chess is not a sport that is very easy to view.

Saina is ranked higher in global badminton rankings than Sania is in tennis - but how much do we see of her on television (and I am not talking about ads here) or in the print media? In this context, why should advertisers or media planners run after a badminton player?

Even a cursory look at the men's sports throw up the same thing. Not every Indian cricketer who endorses products is conventionally good looking. Salil Ankola was an also ran cricketer - he is now doing very well for himself in Indian television, was reasonably good looking, but has hardly got any ads worth mentioning. Bikram Saluja was a tennis player, who was definitely much better looking than Leander Paes ... but Leander definitely got many more endorsements than him. Rajyawardhan Rathore or Jaspal Rana are very good sportspersons who have brought glory to India ... but they do not appear in too many ads. And, Rathore is quite smart and presentable too.

Has any other sports federation in the country done enough to make their sports visible as the BCCI has? Given that, why should media outlets of companies take invisible stars as their brand ambassadors. They are not here to do charity.

The most important thing in order to get endorsements is how visible you are. And rightly so - if you are not visible at frequent intervals, you are not going to help sell too much - irrespective of your talent. Of equally visible sportspersons, the one with more talent stands a very good chance of getting more deals. And rightly so. One should not forget that endorsements are not a reward for a sportsperson's talent .. they are for selling the product ... and media will use those who they believe can sell their product the best. And, rightly so. If the paying public, we who buy all the products change in what grabs our attention, media will follow suit. Otherwise, why should they?

KIC Iam a marketeer and have cut my teeth in India, believe me in India there are names and people that can sell who cannot move a cake of soap elsewhere..(Khushboo anywhere else in the world will result in negative market share for the brand here she endorses saris to jewellery to automobiles etc).

The one thing most advertising agencies will push for is a brand fit and are you trying to tell me that for a no tech/fin organisation Koneru could be a spokesperson...boss go to schools and ask and you shall see that she is a known name..face not so much...

All Iam saying is that glamour plays a big role in endorsements and if you are woman it plays a bigger role...

[LosingNow]

Interesting debate.

I think we get too much wrapped up into 1 deciding factor or another..when the truth is always multi-dimensional and the right answer somewhere in between the extremes on most dimensions.

I think the nature of sport (its popularity in the relevant market), the player's dominance in that sport, the "appeal" (behaviour, "role-model"ness, story, looks/attractiveness - unfortunately, more so in the case of women than in the case of men..) of the specific player.. all these matter in determining the "endorsement" value of the player.

In India, given the overwhelming popularity of cricket, even moderately dominant cricketers with average looks can have higher endorsement value than say a dominant player who has good appeal in a less popular sport like chess.

Having said that the Humpy's of the world need to understand that it is just not sufficient for one to be good at their knitting.. one also has to market themselves. [Unfortunately, in India, we generally tend underestimate the need for marketing oneselves. We somehow grow with this notion that if one is good, one does not need to talk about it]. For that, she needs to make herself presentable (mind you I am not saying glamorize) in a manner that increases her appeal to her target audience. Given that she operates in a relatively less popular sport, she has to work harder on these other dimensions that she can control.

--
Sudzz is right.. a Khushboo decked in traditional Indian garb can sell Saris and Jewelllery in South but will struggle to sell anything outside her target audience. Same with Sachin trying to sell cars in USA.

[pieterSAN]

I do not agree entirely. Of course, glamour does play a major role in landing endorsements. But an even more important factor is the sport involved and how visible the sportsperson concerned is likely to be. However good Koneru may be, she plays a sport that is not followed enough in the country (our significant success notwithstanding) and, more importantly, is not as visible as something like cricket or tennis or soccer.

How many of us look forward to any kind of live telecast of chess matches?. I am an avid chess player .. used to play very regularly till some time back .. but the only chess event that I remember watching was the live telecast of the Anand - Kasparov title match. And that too was late at night and, moreover, chess is not a sport that is very easy to view.

Saina is ranked higher in global badminton rankings than Sania is in tennis - but how much do we see of her on television (and I am not talking about ads here) or in the print media? In this context, why should advertisers or media planners run after a badminton player?

Even a cursory look at the men's sports throw up the same thing. Not every Indian cricketer who endorses products is conventionally good looking. Salil Ankola was an also ran cricketer - he is now doing very well for himself in Indian television, was reasonably good looking, but has hardly got any ads worth mentioning. Bikram Saluja was a tennis player, who was definitely much better looking than Leander Paes ... but Leander definitely got many more endorsements than him. Rajyawardhan Rathore or Jaspal Rana are very good sportspersons who have brought glory to India ... but they do not appear in too many ads. And, Rathore is quite smart and presentable too.

Has any other sports federation in the country done enough to make their sports visible as the BCCI has? Given that, why should media outlets of companies take invisible stars as their brand ambassadors. They are not here to do charity.

The most important thing in order to get endorsements is how visible you are. And rightly so - if you are not visible at frequent intervals, you are not going to help sell too much - irrespective of your talent. Of equally visible sportspersons, the one with more talent stands a very good chance of getting more deals. And rightly so. One should not forget that endorsements are not a reward for a sportsperson's talent .. they are for selling the product ... and media will use those who they believe can sell their product the best. And, rightly so. If the paying public, we who buy all the products change in what grabs our attention, media will follow suit. Otherwise, why should they?

k-i-c, you have made good points but i was talking mainly about women. don't you think 'glamour' plays a far bigger role there?

MT is correct. Anna Kournikova was a prime example of this. Interesting factoid that I love to repeat - Anna Kournikova has not won ANY singles WTA tournaments. Not even ONCE.

There are two sides to this...more men are going to go and watch matches with Anna Kournikova than they would watch Lindsay Davenport. Also, more young girls are going to take up tennis if they see Anna Kournikova with a racquet than they would if they saw  Lindsay Davenport.

P.S. I don't like women's tennis. The women are good looking but I would look up their pics that jfk is kind enough to post over here than watch them on court. Beach volleyball though....Misty May and the likes of her are superb athletes. 

[keep-it-cool]

I do not agree entirely. Of course, glamour does play a major role in landing endorsements. But an even more important factor is the sport involved and how visible the sportsperson concerned is likely to be. However good Koneru may be, she plays a sport that is not followed enough in the country (our significant success notwithstanding) and, more importantly, is not as visible as something like cricket or tennis or soccer.

How many of us look forward to any kind of live telecast of chess matches?. I am an avid chess player .. used to play very regularly till some time back .. but the only chess event that I remember watching was the live telecast of the Anand - Kasparov title match. And that too was late at night and, moreover, chess is not a sport that is very easy to view.

Saina is ranked higher in global badminton rankings than Sania is in tennis - but how much do we see of her on television (and I am not talking about ads here) or in the print media? In this context, why should advertisers or media planners run after a badminton player?

Even a cursory look at the men's sports throw up the same thing. Not every Indian cricketer who endorses products is conventionally good looking. Salil Ankola was an also ran cricketer - he is now doing very well for himself in Indian television, was reasonably good looking, but has hardly got any ads worth mentioning. Bikram Saluja was a tennis player, who was definitely much better looking than Leander Paes ... but Leander definitely got many more endorsements than him. Rajyawardhan Rathore or Jaspal Rana are very good sportspersons who have brought glory to India ... but they do not appear in too many ads. And, Rathore is quite smart and presentable too.

Has any other sports federation in the country done enough to make their sports visible as the BCCI has? Given that, why should media outlets of companies take invisible stars as their brand ambassadors. They are not here to do charity.

The most important thing in order to get endorsements is how visible you are. And rightly so - if you are not visible at frequent intervals, you are not going to help sell too much - irrespective of your talent. Of equally visible sportspersons, the one with more talent stands a very good chance of getting more deals. And rightly so. One should not forget that endorsements are not a reward for a sportsperson's talent .. they are for selling the product ... and media will use those who they believe can sell their product the best. And, rightly so. If the paying public, we who buy all the products change in what grabs our attention, media will follow suit. Otherwise, why should they?

k-i-c, you have made good points but i was talking mainly about women. don't you think 'glamour' plays a far bigger role there?

of course it does. but, let me ask you - if koneru humpy had been playing tennis .. and had achieved something similar to what sania has (forget her superior achievements), wouldnt she have received much more sponsorships than she does now?

[keep-it-cool]

I do not agree entirely. Of course, glamour does play a major role in landing endorsements. But an even more important factor is the sport involved and how visible the sportsperson concerned is likely to be. However good Koneru may be, she plays a sport that is not followed enough in the country (our significant success notwithstanding) and, more importantly, is not as visible as something like cricket or tennis or soccer.

How many of us look forward to any kind of live telecast of chess matches?. I am an avid chess player .. used to play very regularly till some time back .. but the only chess event that I remember watching was the live telecast of the Anand - Kasparov title match. And that too was late at night and, moreover, chess is not a sport that is very easy to view.

Saina is ranked higher in global badminton rankings than Sania is in tennis - but how much do we see of her on television (and I am not talking about ads here) or in the print media? In this context, why should advertisers or media planners run after a badminton player?

Even a cursory look at the men's sports throw up the same thing. Not every Indian cricketer who endorses products is conventionally good looking. Salil Ankola was an also ran cricketer - he is now doing very well for himself in Indian television, was reasonably good looking, but has hardly got any ads worth mentioning. Bikram Saluja was a tennis player, who was definitely much better looking than Leander Paes ... but Leander definitely got many more endorsements than him. Rajyawardhan Rathore or Jaspal Rana are very good sportspersons who have brought glory to India ... but they do not appear in too many ads. And, Rathore is quite smart and presentable too.

Has any other sports federation in the country done enough to make their sports visible as the BCCI has? Given that, why should media outlets of companies take invisible stars as their brand ambassadors. They are not here to do charity.

The most important thing in order to get endorsements is how visible you are. And rightly so - if you are not visible at frequent intervals, you are not going to help sell too much - irrespective of your talent. Of equally visible sportspersons, the one with more talent stands a very good chance of getting more deals. And rightly so. One should not forget that endorsements are not a reward for a sportsperson's talent .. they are for selling the product ... and media will use those who they believe can sell their product the best. And, rightly so. If the paying public, we who buy all the products change in what grabs our attention, media will follow suit. Otherwise, why should they?

KIC Iam a marketeer and have cut my teeth in India, believe me in India there are names and people that can sell who cannot move a cake of soap elsewhere..(Khushboo anywhere else in the world will result in negative market share for the brand here she endorses saris to jewellery to automobiles etc).

The one thing most advertising agencies will push for is a brand fit and are you trying to tell me that for a no tech/fin organisation Koneru could be a spokesperson...boss go to schools and ask and you shall see that she is a known name..face not so much...

All Iam saying is that glamour plays a big role in endorsements and if you are woman it plays a bigger role...

Dont agree. Everyone would know who Koneru Humpy is. Kids are high on GK ..so, they know. But just because you know someone does not mean that he / she would inspire you to buy a product. You need to be consistently visible and top of the mind. If you are not, irrespective of how good or glamourous you are, you are unlikely to sell too much.

There is no point in having Koneru Humpy in one of your ads or making her your brand ambassador if people dont see her enough. Why, even SRT ads drop when he is not in the team. I know of an ad agency who has completed a Rs60cr ad with Irfan Pathan, but they are not bringing it out in the open because he is not in the team.

[keep-it-cool]

I do not agree entirely. Of course, glamour does play a major role in landing endorsements. But an even more important factor is the sport involved and how visible the sportsperson concerned is likely to be. However good Koneru may be, she plays a sport that is not followed enough in the country (our significant success notwithstanding) and, more importantly, is not as visible as something like cricket or tennis or soccer.

How many of us look forward to any kind of live telecast of chess matches?. I am an avid chess player .. used to play very regularly till some time back .. but the only chess event that I remember watching was the live telecast of the Anand - Kasparov title match. And that too was late at night and, moreover, chess is not a sport that is very easy to view.

Saina is ranked higher in global badminton rankings than Sania is in tennis - but how much do we see of her on television (and I am not talking about ads here) or in the print media? In this context, why should advertisers or media planners run after a badminton player?

Even a cursory look at the men's sports throw up the same thing. Not every Indian cricketer who endorses products is conventionally good looking. Salil Ankola was an also ran cricketer - he is now doing very well for himself in Indian television, was reasonably good looking, but has hardly got any ads worth mentioning. Bikram Saluja was a tennis player, who was definitely much better looking than Leander Paes ... but Leander definitely got many more endorsements than him. Rajyawardhan Rathore or Jaspal Rana are very good sportspersons who have brought glory to India ... but they do not appear in too many ads. And, Rathore is quite smart and presentable too.

Has any other sports federation in the country done enough to make their sports visible as the BCCI has? Given that, why should media outlets of companies take invisible stars as their brand ambassadors. They are not here to do charity.

The most important thing in order to get endorsements is how visible you are. And rightly so - if you are not visible at frequent intervals, you are not going to help sell too much - irrespective of your talent. Of equally visible sportspersons, the one with more talent stands a very good chance of getting more deals. And rightly so. One should not forget that endorsements are not a reward for a sportsperson's talent .. they are for selling the product ... and media will use those who they believe can sell their product the best. And, rightly so. If the paying public, we who buy all the products change in what grabs our attention, media will follow suit. Otherwise, why should they?

k-i-c, you have made good points but i was talking mainly about women. don't you think 'glamour' plays a far bigger role there?

MT is correct. Anna Kournikova was a prime example of this. Interesting factoid that I love to repeat - Anna Kournikova has not won ANY singles WTA tournaments. Not even ONCE.

There are two sides to this...more men are going to go and watch matches with Anna Kournikova than they would watch Lindsay Davenport. Also, more young girls are going to take up tennis if they see Anna Kournikova with a racquet than they would if they saw  Lindsay Davenport.

P.S. I don't like women's tennis. The women are good looking but I would look up their pics that jfk is kind enough to post over here than watch them on court. Beach volleyball though....Misty May and the likes of her are superb athletes. 

Anna Kournikova is a rare example. Where she clicked was that she got into the very core of the endorsements world at the very beginning of her career, when she along with Hingis were expected to be the next big players ... that clicked and she moved more into the realm of a media personality than a tennis player ... and she's kept building on it by her linkages with Enrique and appearing in his video etc etc ... i doubt she would have however got any of the endorsements had she not been identified as a potential winner upfront ....

[fineleg]

Good discussion. As kic says, Advertisers pay ambassadors so that they can sell more # of their products (directly or indirectly) - for this reason they would ideally like to use 1. Popular + 2. attractive folks.

Thats the nature of the advertising world.

[dhruvdeepak]

some time back, i was on chat here during a cricket match and kass naidoo, the SA presenter was annoucing the awards. i find her very articulate and think she does an awesome job, but strangely, the first comment i heard on chat was "oh, that ugly naidoo girl is on". in such a world, where does this very simple looking, non-glamourous koneru humpy stand a chance!

i guess this was directed at me, since i was one of the few who made that statement. thanks by the way for not including what else we had written on chat. serves your argument well when that is not mentioned.

this is what was said about kass (formerly kazz  ) naidoo. as of now she only does presentations and lunchtime/post-day shows. but earlier in 2006, she was a full-on  commentator (in fact she was the anchor in the '03 WC for the SA broadcast), and made an unbelievable hash of the job when commentating on the SA vs Aus series in SA. I heard incredible gaffes like Brad Hogg being called a part time medium pacer. She also tried to compare Mcgrath with Akram, trying to debate as to who was the best left arm fast bowler of all time. Sorta reminds you of Mandira Bedi calling Harbhajan a left arm spinner  . Worst, she didnt know who the cricketers on the field were - i noticed her struggling to figure out who HCharl Langeveldt was ("good attempt by ..... the fielder.... there").

What value did she bring to the commentary box? nothing. She displayed no cricketing knowledge, no ability to hold a debate, and the worst part was she got her facts wrong. So yes, I think she knows nothing about cricket, she is just put there as a token commentator to show 'women watch cricket too' or something like that. maybe they should have picked someone who actually knew her cricket! and yes, i am saying this AFTER reading her articles on feminism and cricket (google her up) and her numerous awards for being a female cricket broadcaster. she is piss poor. and that is the reason she does not commentate on air.
my opinion as i mentioned was that i found her ugly. in the chat, we did not do her the disservice of dismissing her (from her job as a cricket broadcaster) based on her looks. the above errors were brought up, if not in this much detail. surprising, yes, because our bunch of boyz enjoy chatting about pretty girls and you know what happens when the testosterone starts flowing...

so before you sigh at the state of 'this world', and of course there is merit in your argument - i agree with you - plz pick a better example than kass naidoo, because i think at least i was right in my judgment of her. whether she is good looking or not is a different debate.

[MockTurtle]

some time back, i was on chat here during a cricket match and kass naidoo, the SA presenter was annoucing the awards. i find her very articulate and think she does an awesome job, but strangely, the first comment i heard on chat was "oh, that ugly naidoo girl is on". in such a world, where does this very simple looking, non-glamourous koneru humpy stand a chance!

i guess this was directed at me, since i was one of the few who made that statement. thanks by the way for not including what else we had written on chat. serves your argument well when that is not mentioned.

this is what was said about kass (formerly kazz  ) naidoo. as of now she only does presentations and lunchtime/post-day shows. but earlier in 2006, she was a full-on  commentator (in fact she was the anchor in the '03 WC for the SA broadcast), and made an unbelievable hash of the job when commentating on the SA vs Aus series in SA. I heard incredible gaffes like Brad Hogg being called a part time medium pacer. She also tried to compare Mcgrath with Akram, trying to debate as to who was the best left arm fast bowler of all time. Sorta reminds you of Mandira Bedi calling Harbhajan a left arm spinner  . Worst, she didnt know who the cricketers on the field were - i noticed her struggling to figure out who HCharl Langeveldt was ("good attempt by ..... the fielder.... there").

What value did she bring to the commentary box? nothing. She displayed no cricketing knowledge, no ability to hold a debate, and the worst part was she got her facts wrong. So yes, I think she knows nothing about cricket, she is just put there as a token commentator to show 'women watch cricket too' or something like that. maybe they should have picked someone who actually knew her cricket! and yes, i am saying this AFTER reading her articles on feminism and cricket (google her up) and her numerous awards for being a female cricket broadcaster. she is piss poor. and that is the reason she does not commentate on air.
my opinion as i mentioned was that i found her ugly. in the chat, we did not do her the disservice of dismissing her (from her job as a cricket broadcaster) based on her looks. the above errors were brought up, if not in this much detail. surprising, yes, because our bunch of boyz enjoy chatting about pretty girls and you know what happens when the testosterone starts flowing...

so before you sigh at the state of 'this world', and of course there is merit in your argument - i agree with you - plz pick a better example than kass naidoo, because i think at least i was right in my judgment of her. whether she is good looking or not is a different debate.

did you say that? i don't recall but anyway, my point was about the FIRST comment made about her (that *i* heard). it stayed in my mind. this was when the presentation ceremony was about to commence. it wasn't about her lack of cricketing knowledge or mistakes she makes. anyway, on this particular day, i don't recall her skills being discussed. i haven't been on chat a lot lately and again, cd have missed other discussions. also, i do not get her commentary(i get the indian feed) - i've seen just her presentation and i still think she is articulate and conducts herself well and my opinion is based on that. if you used "ugly" to encompass all of the above criticism that you dished out, i'll accept your word.

i am really not interested in getting into a personal battle with you. you are entitled to your views and i am not going to refute it or judge you. if you think i am posting selective information, so be it.

regards,
MT

[dhruvdeepak]

some time back, i was on chat here during a cricket match and kass naidoo, the SA presenter was annoucing the awards. i find her very articulate and think she does an awesome job, but strangely, the first comment i heard on chat was "oh, that ugly naidoo girl is on". in such a world, where does this very simple looking, non-glamourous koneru humpy stand a chance!

i guess this was directed at me, since i was one of the few who made that statement. thanks by the way for not including what else we had written on chat. serves your argument well when that is not mentioned.

this is what was said about kass (formerly kazz  ) naidoo. as of now she only does presentations and lunchtime/post-day shows. but earlier in 2006, she was a full-on  commentator (in fact she was the anchor in the '03 WC for the SA broadcast), and made an unbelievable hash of the job when commentating on the SA vs Aus series in SA. I heard incredible gaffes like Brad Hogg being called a part time medium pacer. She also tried to compare Mcgrath with Akram, trying to debate as to who was the best left arm fast bowler of all time. Sorta reminds you of Mandira Bedi calling Harbhajan a left arm spinner  . Worst, she didnt know who the cricketers on the field were - i noticed her struggling to figure out who HCharl Langeveldt was ("good attempt by ..... the fielder.... there").

What value did she bring to the commentary box? nothing. She displayed no cricketing knowledge, no ability to hold a debate, and the worst part was she got her facts wrong. So yes, I think she knows nothing about cricket, she is just put there as a token commentator to show 'women watch cricket too' or something like that. maybe they should have picked someone who actually knew her cricket! and yes, i am saying this AFTER reading her articles on feminism and cricket (google her up) and her numerous awards for being a female cricket broadcaster. she is piss poor. and that is the reason she does not commentate on air.
my opinion as i mentioned was that i found her ugly. in the chat, we did not do her the disservice of dismissing her (from her job as a cricket broadcaster) based on her looks. the above errors were brought up, if not in this much detail. surprising, yes, because our bunch of boyz enjoy chatting about pretty girls and you know what happens when the testosterone starts flowing...

so before you sigh at the state of 'this world', and of course there is merit in your argument - i agree with you - plz pick a better example than kass naidoo, because i think at least i was right in my judgment of her. whether she is good looking or not is a different debate.

did you say that? i don't recall but anyway, my point was about the FIRST comment made about her (that *i* heard). it stayed in my mind. this was when the presentation ceremony was about to commence. it wasn't about her lack of cricketing knowledge or mistakes she makes. anyway, on this particular day, i don't recall her skills being discussed. i haven't been on chat a lot lately and again, cd have missed other discussions. also, i do not get her commentary(i get the indian feed) - i've seen just her presentation and i still think she is articulate and conducts herself well and my opinion is based on that. if you used "ugly" to encompass all of the above criticism that you dished out, i'll accept your word.

i am really not interested in getting into a personal battle with you. you are entitled to your views and i am not going to refute it or judge you. if you think i am posting selective information, so be it.

regards,
MT

personal battle? you had made a comment (about what was said in chat - about kass naidoo) and i replied because i wanted to give the whole picture. if you were not on chat then fair enough - but you said you were, and my recollection was that we discussed why she was a bad pick - because she was a poor commentator - NOT because she didnt look good according to me.
and she does not do commentary anymore - presumably because she did a bad job in a previous series.

if you used "ugly" to encompass all of the above criticism that you dished out, i'll accept your word.

what sort of retort is this? i have clearly written down what 'ugly' was used for. it was not to say that it made her a bad commentator.

you'll have noted that i agreed with your viewpoint on the bigger issue of glamor girls, glamor sports.

[LosingNow]

I think I was also in the Chat when this happened. I think I mentioned "who is she?", DD gave her name, and I said "she could use a better haircut".   [nothing wrong with getting grooming right - is there?]
Frankly, while I have not heard her on commentary - and from what DD writes, I guess I did not miss much - her studio presentation skills were fairly ordinary too. Of course, Barry/Robin's partisan comments did not help my mindset while listening to her.
I think I agree with DD on this.. it is important that sportscasters have good knowledge of the game and specially women, because they have a higher hurdle to overcome (due to the perception that they are there just to attract the juvenile men)..and hiring Kass' of the world (if what DD says is true) does not help their cause. 

[poondu]

Back to Topic


Beaten Safin calls officials pathetic

Marat Safin lambasted Australian Open officials as pathetic after he once again hit the self-destruct button on Friday.

During an explosive third-round showdown with Andy Roddick, Safin sulked, screamed and shrieked his way to a 7-6, 2-6, 6-4, 7-6 defeat.


The combustible Russian's anger boiled over as he blasted tournament referee Wayne McKewen for making him play on what he considered was a wet surface following a rain interruption.

"They have been so pathetic on this subject. It was a joke," the 2005 champion told reporters.

"I really am just so disappointed that people are so blind, they don't want to see anything...it's a nonsense for me.


"Nobody cleaned the outside of the court.. it was really wet and I'm showing it to them. And the guys are saying, 'No, you have to play'. Why (do) I have to put my health in doubt?

"If I slip and if I get injured and if something happens..."

The match was briefly interrupted at the end of the third set because of rain and once the roof had been closed on the Rod Laver Arena, the Russian let rip because the court had not been wiped dry to his satisfaction.

As Roddick took up his place behind the baseline, the Russian stubbornly sat rooted to his chair. Even when McKewen came up and ordered him to play on, the Russian continued to protest loudly.

HEATED EXCHANGE

After what seemed like an eternity, and with the growing possibility of being defaulted from the match, the Russian got up and completed the game but refused to be quiet.

"This guy (McKewen) comes in and says it's okay. He has no idea... he's never played tennis in his life," Safin yelled at French umpire Pascal Maria.

The heated exchange ended with Safin swearing at the umpire which earned the Russian a warning for audible obscenity -- and almost certainly a hefty fine.

He continued to let his frustrations known during the changeovers, glaring up at Maria from his courtside chair.

The umpire was then left red-faced after a call he overruled at 1-1 in the fourth set was challenged by Safin. When Hawk-eye technology proved Safin right, the Russian roared his delight and defiantly stared at the umpire.

"If you're not sure, don't call it," he raged at Maria.

"You see what's gonna happen? I cannot argue with you as you have all the power."

He continued the heated debate long after the three hours 12-minute contest had ended.

"He's getting paid for this. I'm getting paid for what I'm doing," Safin said. "Then he's overruling the ball that is in. So if you are so sure, it must be out, but he's overruling the linesman."

http://ia.rediff.com/sports/2007/jan/19saf.htm

[sudzz]

See I think the issue as LN put it is largely multidimensional and one that needs a perspective from the investor as well as from the skill owner's side and finally from the recepient that is all of us.

The issue we are discussing is that most advertisers take the path of least resistance and use stars that look good rather than stars that can be created.(this is more true if the star in concern is a woman rather than a male).

The point is not about Humpy alone or her lack of marketing skills etc its more about the system which lets stars rot away to abject ignominy of having to borrow money to ply their skills which in turn can bring glory to the country.

We are country which allows our stars to come to a state where they need to sell their medals for which they literally sweat blood...Everyone will agree that even to play a glamour sport like cricket in India even today the sacrifices required of the entire family is amazing and probably ever successful star can write books about how their entire family supported them to get them where they are.

The point about Humpy and a countless others like her is that just like the government is apathetic towards to these sports persons the private enterprise is also taking the path of least resistance and not choosing to invest in any place where a return is not guarenteed.

I for one dont agree with that philosophy and thats simply because India on the whole is a more aware nation and we recognise our stars even today a little more than what happens in the west. So for example if Bank of Baroda did actually use Humpy in their ad's to say talk about their tech edge coming from superior brain power there are over a million people that will relate to it and whether we like it or not a million strong audience is a big enough to matter.

[MockTurtle]

some time back, i was on chat here during a cricket match and kass naidoo, the SA presenter was annoucing the awards. i find her very articulate and think she does an awesome job, but strangely, the first comment i heard on chat was "oh, that ugly naidoo girl is on". in such a world, where does this very simple looking, non-glamourous koneru humpy stand a chance!

i guess this was directed at me, since i was one of the few who made that statement. thanks by the way for not including what else we had written on chat. serves your argument well when that is not mentioned.

this is what was said about kass (formerly kazz  ) naidoo. as of now she only does presentations and lunchtime/post-day shows. but earlier in 2006, she was a full-on  commentator (in fact she was the anchor in the '03 WC for the SA broadcast), and made an unbelievable hash of the job when commentating on the SA vs Aus series in SA. I heard incredible gaffes like Brad Hogg being called a part time medium pacer. She also tried to compare Mcgrath with Akram, trying to debate as to who was the best left arm fast bowler of all time. Sorta reminds you of Mandira Bedi calling Harbhajan a left arm spinner  . Worst, she didnt know who the cricketers on the field were - i noticed her struggling to figure out who HCharl Langeveldt was ("good attempt by ..... the fielder.... there").

What value did she bring to the commentary box? nothing. She displayed no cricketing knowledge, no ability to hold a debate, and the worst part was she got her facts wrong. So yes, I think she knows nothing about cricket, she is just put there as a token commentator to show 'women watch cricket too' or something like that. maybe they should have picked someone who actually knew her cricket! and yes, i am saying this AFTER reading her articles on feminism and cricket (google her up) and her numerous awards for being a female cricket broadcaster. she is piss poor. and that is the reason she does not commentate on air.
my opinion as i mentioned was that i found her ugly. in the chat, we did not do her the disservice of dismissing her (from her job as a cricket broadcaster) based on her looks. the above errors were brought up, if not in this much detail. surprising, yes, because our bunch of boyz enjoy chatting about pretty girls and you know what happens when the testosterone starts flowing...

so before you sigh at the state of 'this world', and of course there is merit in your argument - i agree with you - plz pick a better example than kass naidoo, because i think at least i was right in my judgment of her. whether she is good looking or not is a different debate.

did you say that? i don't recall but anyway, my point was about the FIRST comment made about her (that *i* heard). it stayed in my mind. this was when the presentation ceremony was about to commence. it wasn't about her lack of cricketing knowledge or mistakes she makes. anyway, on this particular day, i don't recall her skills being discussed. i haven't been on chat a lot lately and again, cd have missed other discussions. also, i do not get her commentary(i get the indian feed) - i've seen just her presentation and i still think she is articulate and conducts herself well and my opinion is based on that. if you used "ugly" to encompass all of the above criticism that you dished out, i'll accept your word.

i am really not interested in getting into a personal battle with you. you are entitled to your views and i am not going to refute it or judge you. if you think i am posting selective information, so be it.

regards,
MT

personal battle? you had made a comment (about what was said in chat - about kass naidoo) and i replied because i wanted to give the whole picture. if you were not on chat then fair enough - but you said you were, and my recollection was that we discussed why she was a bad pick - because she was a poor commentator - NOT because she didnt look good according to me.
and she does not do commentary anymore - presumably because she did a bad job in a previous series.

if you used "ugly" to encompass all of the above criticism that you dished out, i'll accept your word.

what sort of retort is this? i have clearly written down what 'ugly' was used for. it was not to say that it made her a bad commentator.

you'll have noted that i agreed with your viewpoint on the bigger issue of glamor girls, glamor sports.

DD, i probably left right after your remark coz i normally leave when the presentation starts and missed the rest of the discussion. anyway, i am happy to apologize and take back this 'example' because my intent is not to pick on any individual but more illustrate the larger picture and what the public look for. i just cited this because i had a long discussion about the same topic with someone i know the very next day after that chat. it isn't meant to be a personal comment on you or anyone else on the DG. a bad choice, in retrospect.

as for kass, i think she is far more articulate during PRESENTATION than many others. i cannot comment on her commentary because i don't have data.

[dhruvdeepak]

some time back, i was on chat here during a cricket match and kass naidoo, the SA presenter was annoucing the awards. i find her very articulate and think she does an awesome job, but strangely, the first comment i heard on chat was "oh, that ugly naidoo girl is on". in such a world, where does this very simple looking, non-glamourous koneru humpy stand a chance!

i guess this was directed at me, since i was one of the few who made that statement. thanks by the way for not including what else we had written on chat. serves your argument well when that is not mentioned.

this is what was said about kass (formerly kazz  ) naidoo. as of now she only does presentations and lunchtime/post-day shows. but earlier in 2006, she was a full-on  commentator (in fact she was the anchor in the '03 WC for the SA broadcast), and made an unbelievable hash of the job when commentating on the SA vs Aus series in SA. I heard incredible gaffes like Brad Hogg being called a part time medium pacer. She also tried to compare Mcgrath with Akram, trying to debate as to who was the best left arm fast bowler of all time. Sorta reminds you of Mandira Bedi calling Harbhajan a left arm spinner  . Worst, she didnt know who the cricketers on the field were - i noticed her struggling to figure out who HCharl Langeveldt was ("good attempt by ..... the fielder.... there").

What value did she bring to the commentary box? nothing. She displayed no cricketing knowledge, no ability to hold a debate, and the worst part was she got her facts wrong. So yes, I think she knows nothing about cricket, she is just put there as a token commentator to show 'women watch cricket too' or something like that. maybe they should have picked someone who actually knew her cricket! and yes, i am saying this AFTER reading her articles on feminism and cricket (google her up) and her numerous awards for being a female cricket broadcaster. she is piss poor. and that is the reason she does not commentate on air.
my opinion as i mentioned was that i found her ugly. in the chat, we did not do her the disservice of dismissing her (from her job as a cricket broadcaster) based on her looks. the above errors were brought up, if not in this much detail. surprising, yes, because our bunch of boyz enjoy chatting about pretty girls and you know what happens when the testosterone starts flowing...

so before you sigh at the state of 'this world', and of course there is merit in your argument - i agree with you - plz pick a better example than kass naidoo, because i think at least i was right in my judgment of her. whether she is good looking or not is a different debate.

did you say that? i don't recall but anyway, my point was about the FIRST comment made about her (that *i* heard). it stayed in my mind. this was when the presentation ceremony was about to commence. it wasn't about her lack of cricketing knowledge or mistakes she makes. anyway, on this particular day, i don't recall her skills being discussed. i haven't been on chat a lot lately and again, cd have missed other discussions. also, i do not get her commentary(i get the indian feed) - i've seen just her presentation and i still think she is articulate and conducts herself well and my opinion is based on that. if you used "ugly" to encompass all of the above criticism that you dished out, i'll accept your word.

i am really not interested in getting into a personal battle with you. you are entitled to your views and i am not going to refute it or judge you. if you think i am posting selective information, so be it.

regards,
MT

personal battle? you had made a comment (about what was said in chat - about kass naidoo) and i replied because i wanted to give the whole picture. if you were not on chat then fair enough - but you said you were, and my recollection was that we discussed why she was a bad pick - because she was a poor commentator - NOT because she didnt look good according to me.
and she does not do commentary anymore - presumably because she did a bad job in a previous series.

if you used "ugly" to encompass all of the above criticism that you dished out, i'll accept your word.

what sort of retort is this? i have clearly written down what 'ugly' was used for. it was not to say that it made her a bad commentator.

you'll have noted that i agreed with your viewpoint on the bigger issue of glamor girls, glamor sports.

DD, i probably left right after your remark coz i normally leave when the presentation starts and missed the rest of the discussion. anyway, i am happy to apologize and take back this 'example' because my intent is not to pick on any individual but more illustrate the larger picture and what the public look for. i just cited this because i had a long discussion about the same topic with someone i know the very next day after that chat. it isn't meant to be a personal comment on you or anyone else on the DG. a bad choice, in retrospect.

as for kass, i think she is far more articulate during PRESENTATION than many others. i cannot comment on her commentary because i don't have data.

i dont see why you need to apologize. you like kass as a presenter. no worries!

[MockTurtle]

i dont see why you need to apologize. you like kass as a presenter. no worries!

apology was for quoting you and the chat conversation as an example of the point i was trying to make.

[pieterSAN]

Djokovic in Federer...

Q. What's the difference playing against him or anybody else?

NOVAK DJOKOVIC: The difference is, first of all, of course sometimes it looks really funny the way he plays, so confident, so perfect in some situations. It feels like and looks like he doesn't feel any pressure, which is very strange because he's No. 1 and everybody wants to get this spot. He's so superior.

You know, it's a big difference because he's there, he knows that he's best on the world. He played against more or less all the players in the world. With most of them he has a positive score, except Nadal. He's just feeling pretty comfortable on the court.

You know, he improved on his game, which is a funny thing. He improved a lot. Every time you see him he improves. I don't know, on what things he can improve on in the future (laughter)? But he really plays better and better every time.

[LosingNow]

I watched Serena's match late last night....

The euphesims used by announcers (lack of training, not in top shape etc) to indirectly describe "how FAT she had become?" were hilarious!! Man, has she "grown" or what...I think she will  be lucky to get to Quarters.

Time to eat crow.. Serena played a tough match against Sahar Peer of Israel and won.. she is in semis. Wow.

[pieterSAN]

Excerpt from Roddick interview after beating Fish in the quarters. Note the bolded part. I wonder if this is the Jimmy Connors effect.

Q. You are supposed to play Roger in the semi. Do you enjoy it?

ANDY RODDICK: I look forward to it. You know, we've done it before. I'm sure we'll do it again. I feel like I'm in good form. I'd love to see where I match up.

Q. Match points in Shanghai. You beat him in Kooyong. Do you feel that gives you confidence?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah. I mean, obviously. I said before we played in Kooyong, if I had won there I'm not going to come in acting like it's some huge match.

But given the choice going in to win a match or lose a match, you choose to win it. That's kind of the way I've been looking at it.

Q. What were your misgivings way back when the process started about whether Jimmy would work out for you? How have things sort of worked out in sort of what your reservations may have been way back when?

ANDY RODDICK: When I was thinking about people - I said it before - his name just intrigued me the most. When I'm looking at it, if I'm being frank, I looked at it and said, Okay, this one could have a great upside or it could just be terrible from the beginning. We didn't know each other on a personal level. He had never expressed any interest in coaching at all.

I didn't think it would happen. I figured I'd throw it out there. He'd say, Thanks but no thanks, and we'd most of on. When he expressed interest, I was really excited about it. We had the four- or five-day period before Indianapolis where I guess he kind of wanted to get a gauge for me a little bit more, and I guess vice versa. I was nervous going into that.

You don't know how you're going to react to someone. We had zero prior relationship. We had a conversation at Wimbledon. Before that, I don't know if we'd ever really had a talk before. That's a little intimidating, you know.

Q. Why do you think Mardy caved in so easily? 2

ANDY RODDICK: I don't know if he caved in so easily. I think he might have been a bit nervous in the beginning. He missed some balls like he probably hasn't been missing lately. I think after that I got some confidence and played about as well as I can.

Q. In your next match against Roger --

ANDY RODDICK: Has he played yet?

Q. In your match with Roger.

ANDY RODDICK: In my next match?

Q. Yes, against Roger.

ANDY RODDICK: Has he played yet?

Q. No, he hasn't. If he does win, you play Roger in the next round, are you going to be doing something different in your game plan, or are you going to do what you do best basically?

ANDY RODDICK: Well, I've been a little bit more successful the last couple times I played him. I don't feel like you can sit back and let him create. I think that's when you get in trouble. I'm going to have to go with what I do well and try to attack him, at least make him come up with shots from uncomfortable positions.

If he's comfortable and set while hitting the ball, that makes it tough.

[LosingNow]

Ha ha ... Andy "the needler"

[keep-it-cool]

The point about Humpy and a countless others like her is that just like the government is apathetic towards to these sports persons the private enterprise is also taking the path of least resistance and not choosing to invest in any place where a return is not guarenteed.

Why should they?? It is not their business to support sports persons. Their business is to run their business and do the best they can to achieve the best results for their shareholders. In doing so, aim for the maximum upside at the least possible risk. If the path of least resistance happens to coincide with the one where potential upside is highest and potential downside is lowest, that is the only thing they should do.

Leave the fortunes of the sportspersons to their federations and the government to handle.

[pieterSAN]

Roger Federer beat Andy Roddick 6-4, 6-0, 6-2.

[pieterSAN]

Some stats on Federer-Roddick match

Federer had only 49% first serves.
Federer had 12 unforced errors in the match. Roddick had 18.
Roddick won 6 points in the second set.

Federer equalled a 73 old record for consecutive finals reached.

[vincent]

Some stats on Federer-Roddick match

Federer had only 49% first serves.
Federer had 12 unforced errors in the match. Roddick had 18.
Roddick won 6 points in the second set.

Federer equalled a 73 old record for consecutive finals reached.

Yes, I saw the match. And what a match!! The score suggests a non-match and yet Andy Roddick was playing well. I hope for the guys in the US, they show the recorded match. Some of those passing shots, hard to see them again at least not at that frequency. I was like a professional playing against a schoolboy.. And all this with Roger's service being much weaker than normal...(50%?? His average for first normally is above 70)

[keep-it-cool]

Federer is King.

Maria Sharapova beat Kim Clisters 6-4 6-2.