Simona, sexism, and the denial and dismissal of sexism and misogyny in professional tennis

I like Simona Halep's game. I like the way she handles her career. I like her personality. To be even more candid--I like Simona. But her insistence that there is no sexism in professional tennis is, in a word, delusional. 

Halep, a former world number 1, has explained to us that there can't possibly be sexism in the sport because the umpires call the matches the same for both women and men. This is a head-spinning statement of 'logic" that could just as well have come from a Lewis Carroll creation.

• When women have to constantly fight for equal pay, that is sexism.
  

• When an ATP player (Jo Wilfried Tsonga) says that women are inherently inferior athletes because of female hormones, that is sexism (a lot of the media found that amusing--that, too, is sexism).

• When an ATP player (Novak Djokovic) says that it's fine for woman to get more prize money as long as men then also get even more prize money, that is sexism. 

• When an ATP player (David Ferrer) dismisses a ruling from a female umpire because "girls are so stupid," that is sexism.

• When an entire Davis Cup team (Spain) becomes hysterical when they are given a female captain because "she can't possibly understand the men's game" (apparently, men must easily understand the women's game, since so many of them are WTA coaches), that is sexism.

• When a member of that team (Rafael Nadal) criticizes said captain for being "defensive" when she has been attacked in public for days on end, that is sexism.

• When the former director (Raymond Moore) of a major tournament says that the WTA players "ride on the coattails of the men," and that the women should "get down on their knees and thank" them, that is sexism.
  

• When an ATP play (Andy Murray) hires a woman as a coach and he becomes the butt of many ATP jokes, that is sexism.

• When an author (Patrick McEnroe) thinks that his observations on Venus Williams' "inappropriate" kits are important enough to include in his book, that is sexism.

• When a member of the ATP Players' Council (Sergiy Stakhovsky) uses his position to campaign against equal prize money, that is sexism.
  

• When members of the media ask about "tennis,"  and "tennis players," but they mean "men's tennis," and "male tennis players," that is sexism.

• When an ATP member (Rafael Nadal) repeatedly brings up the subject of male models to justify women not getting equal pay, that is sexism.
  

• When commentators use sexist language (more common among females), such as calling women "girls" and "young ladies," that is sexism.
  

• When ATP members (Tomas Berdych, Giles Simon) declare that women's tennis is inferior, that is sexism.

• When an ATP player (Nick Kyrgios) uses a WTA player's private life to publicly insult an ATP peer, that is sexism. 

• When a former player now turned coach (Dmitry Tursunov) compares breaking rackets with rough sex, that is probably worse than sexism.
  

• When a journalist (not to mention, countless fans) informs us that ATP players should make more money than WTA players because "the market rules," that is sexism (hello!--what about the inherent sexism in the "market"?).
  

• When ATP players tell Andy Murray that they would rather forgo a pay raise if women are getting one, too, that is sexism--and worse. 

• When fans in Australia loudly and demonstrably object to Vika Azarenka's grunting (which it isn't--it is screaming), that is sexism.
  

• When an ATP player (Sam Querrey) stars on a television show that is based on outrageously male-dominant gender roles, that is sexism.

• When Wimbledon inspects the insides of women's skirts, that is sexism (actually, it's assault).

• When the French Open decides to deny night matches to all WTA players, that is sexism.
  

• When a coach (Toni Nadal) dismisses the ruling of a female umpire by saying "we had some problems with a girl," that is sexism.
  

• When an ATP player (John Isner) says that he could never hire a female coach because they wouldn't be able to live in the same house or apartment, that is sexism. 

• When a former ATP player (Tim Henman) bases an entire interview with ATP players (and they go along with it) on "what would Serena Williams' ranking be on the ATP?" that is sexism.

• When an ATP player (Alexander Zverev) is credibly accused of committing violence toward a woman and the ATP remains totally silent, that is sexism

• When the Next Gen draw ceremony features female models who reveal groupings and letters under their clothes, that is blatant sexism.
  

Sexism coming from the ATP and the sports media is, of course, nothing new. From John Newcombe ("The ladies' game is the icing on the cake") to Stefan Edberg to Janko Tipsarevic--the organization has long shown a disdain for women. Halep herself was the victim of one of the most overt examples of sexism from a member of the press when he asked her a deeply personal and totally inappropriate question about her breast reduction surgery.

Whatever compels Simona Halep to deny sexism and misogyny in professional tennis is something about which I won't make guesses. What is really sad, though, is that there are so many fans who are well aware of all the sexism, but they continue to support the ATP--not just men, but a lot of women. I no longer watch ATP matches unless my favorites are playing, or two ATP members are playing who have not demonstrated sexist attitudes or said and done sexist things (or those few who have openly supported female players).

Why on earth would I want to watch someone who believes that I'm inherently inferior to him?

Sexism at Wimbledon--not so shocking

Some of you may have seen the Daily Mail feature, "Babe, set and match: Why looks count for more than talent when Wimbledon decides which girls will play on Centre Court." The title of the story itself is sexist, since the majority of the players are women, but one would not expect the British press to care about that. It surprises me a bit that this story has gotten so much attention from what I think is a very large "post feminist" fan base. Much of this fan base appears to be fine with the heavy marketing of sex on the tour, but suddenly--upon learning that Wimbledon officials are brazenly using very sexist standards to promote Centre Court--there is some outrage.

To be sure, many--including players, apparently--also think that Wimbledon's marketing ploy and similar types of marketing are perfectly fine. Serena Williams reminded us that "sex sells" but did not say anything beyond that. Maria Sharapova, asked a couple of years ago whether the tour sells sex, said "I don't care what they're selling" (shortly after that, somone began selling Sharapova pillows visually designed so that owners could fondle "Maria's breasts" all night). Gisela Dulko, when told in a press conference what a babe she was, told the press how grateful she was to know they think that of her. And Venus Williams, alleged spokeswoman for equality, has answered every question about sexism in women's pro tennis marketing by changing the subject. She and other players may indeed obeject to it, but as long as they remain silent, things will only get worse.

28- and 30-year-old players are called "girls." The tour promotes its top players in "sexy" (they are actually more like a satire on sexy) photographic poses. Outgoing Sony Ericsson WTA Tour CEO Larry Scott made sure we all knew that the players desire a "balance" of being athletes and "feminine," as though the two were mutually exclusive. (And anyway, what is "feminine"?) As a reader recently pointed out, he may as well have just come out and announced not to worry--no lesbians here. I agree with that, but I think that is even more to it: I also think Scott didn't want anyone to think these women were strong, independent females, since that, too, would not be "feminine." Because we are living in the 1950s.

In other words, it came as no surprise to me at all to read about the Centre Court selections; I find this news to be part and parcel of the sexist culture of my nation and other nations that produce tennis players, as well as the sexist culture of sports in general. As ugly as the sexism is, however, there is more than sexism in play in these selections. The "babes" selected to play on Centre Court--except in situations in which the selections are default--like the "babes" selected as the tour's hottest women on the Australian Open website, have one thing in common--their skin color. Serena Williams is not a babe. Li Na is not a babe. There are a lot of people, incidentally, who think these two women are beautiful, but they do not qualify for "babe" status. And while I realize that consideration of beauty is very subjective, it is hardly a coincidence that African American and Asian women do not ever appear on the list. The world's most beautiful lesbian could be on the tour, too, and--if she were out--you can be assured she would not be on the list, either.

The BBC, according to the Daily Mail article, is all for Wimbledon's marketing technique because it increases the number of television viewers. British fans and players frequently complain that their country doesn't care about tennis at all, except for two weeks out of the year. The babes, then, need to make sure they play as well as some of their non-babe peers. Perhaps if the British public were subjected more often to the like of the Williams sisters Svetlana Kuznetsova, Nadia Petrova, and Zheng Jie, they would appreicate tennis more.

40 LOVE to see some real change

Dear WTA:

You did an outstanding job with the 40 LOVE campaign. I'm sure I speak for most fans when I say how great it was to see so much attention paid to the Original 9, and to have the WTA's impressive history talked about so much by the sports media. Well done.

However, an excellent marketing campaign about the spirit and intention of the Original 9 isn't the same as really honoring the spirit and intention of the Original 9, which was to grant women what was rightfully theirs--to compete on an equal level with men.

The prize money issue is a big one, and great strides have been made in that area. But sexism is still sexism and there's a lot more to the concept of equality than just prize money. I'd like to see the WTA take an authentic position on behalf of women that would benefit the players, all sportswomen, and women and girls everywhere. As WTA player Sania Mirza (and what a wonderful spokeswoman she is) said recently: "When a woman wants to do something on her own way, she is criticised, dubbed as a rebel." She's right, and when a man wants to do something his own way, he's called "an individual" and "a maverick."

As Mirza points out, sportswomen (and all professional women, I'll add) are asked about what they wear, about when they're going to have babies, etc., while the media concentrates on men's athletic endeavors. The sports media calls male athletes "warriors" while it creates gossip about female athletes' private lives and encourages the "cat fight" mentality among fans.

I was around when the WTA was formed, and believe me--we haven't really come that far, baby, in sports or in any other area of society. In fact, we've gone backwards. In the U.S., bigoted attitudes toward women and girls that were at least held up for inspection in the 70s are now condoned and even encouraged. Sexism and misogyny are such a part of the fabric of world culture, girls grow up not even realizing that they are being treated as people who are "less than" men.

In no particular order, these are things I'd like to see from the WTA:

1. Get rid of on-court coaching. 
I don't want anyone, male or female, to receive on-court coaching because on-court coaching goes against the spirit of the game of tennis, which is a sport that's as much mental as it is physical. The tennis player stands alone (unless it's a doubles match), and has to figure things out for herself. In the case of the WTA, on-court coaching--and this is especially true since there is no ATP on-court coaching--makes the women look as though they can't figure it out for themselves. To make matters worse, almost all of the coaches are men, so there they are--young women being directed by older men on how to play an opponent. It reeks of paternalism.

2. Create a program to encourage the development of female coaches.
We have so few of them in professional tennis. (And by the way, ATP--you need to do the same thing; where are the female coaches?) You can encourage girls all you want to be anything they can be, but until they see women coaching players, the message won't be transmitted.

3. Do not ever threaten to create a device that intrudes on a woman's body. Ever.
The concept of using a grunt-o-meter is not only ridiculous, it's offensive. I've never known what all the "grunting" (most of it isn't) fuss was about. No one complains about grunting on the ATP. As far as I can tell, the sports media created the "controversy" and people hopped onto the bandwagon.

But even if there are legitimate reasons (I don't think there are, but for the sake of argument....) to stop players from making noise, the idea of using a measuring device is really no different in spirit than previous concepts like putting female flight attendants on weight scales, requiring women in certain professions (or relationships) to get plastic surgery, and conducting "virginity tests" on adolescent girls. Women and girls have had our bodies measured and encroached upon enough.

4. Stop calling the head of the WTA a man.
An organization that claims to promote the well-being and advancement of women and girls really needs to stop saying "chairman" when it refers to the current head of the organization. What decade are we in, anyway?

5. Find some female masters of ceremony.
Tournament after tournament, including those that are women-only, the person doing the on-court interviews, making the announcements, and conducting the activities is a man. Often, it's a man who is sexist and/or paternalistic. (I heard a master of ceremonies tell a little girl who had won a competition that she couldn't make a celebratory run around the court because "girls don't do that." Another, ubiqitous, master of ceremonies calls grown women "young ladies" every time he interviews them or talks about them.) At the very least, get men who show more respect to the female players. But we really need some female masters of ceremonies.

6. Don't just sit there--fight sexism when it occurs.
When members of the sports media always compare female players with male players and never the other way around, say something. When an ATP player declares that women can't possibly compete as well as men because of our hormones, show your outrage. When members of the media make wink-nudge jokes about what that ATP player said, put them in their place.

When masters of ceremonies patronize players, educate them. When commentators assume that a female player is "copying" an ATP player and she isn't, complain. When commentators call women "girls," correct them. When the sports press (I'm talking to you, Great Britain) makes sexually oriented comments about WTA players' bodies and refers to the tour in demeaning ways, call them out and make them stop doing it.

The Original 9 were women with spine. The WTA couldn't have better role models.

If they hate us so much, why do they watch us play and perform?

The most cursory exploration of tennis forums on the Web will quickly yield a collection of comments about WTA players that range from sexist and offensive to misogynistic and obscene. 25-year-old women are called "girls," which is bad enough, but the players are also routinely called "bitches" and "sluts." Very recently, it was suggested on one forum that a player retired in her match because she was thinking about sex, and on another forum, it was written that she retired in order to get off the court and have a sexual encounter.

Female players are routinely "suspected" of having problems with their menstrual periods--of course some of them have problems with their menstrual periods, and they play through the pain and complications. Players' disagreements--real, imagined, or exaggerated--are referred to as "cat fights." The women's game is often irrelevantly-- and malevolently--compared with the men's game. And there are frequent conversations about how "ugly" or "masculine" some players are, right down to detailed analyses of their body parts and their imagined personal lives. All of his talk is unbearably hate-filled and vicious.

The hatred of women (funny how that isn't referred to as bigotry in the media and in conversation) is nothing new. Women and girls struggle to gain both equality and respect in every culture in the world. Among women, internalized sexism is rampant. If you are a woman and choose to open your eyes and ears, you are affected by sexism and misogyny every day. What I don't understand is, why do those who have nothing but contempt for women choose to watch women play sports and perform?

The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour has a lot of real fans--men and women (and some children, too) who enjoy the game and like to watch their favorite players in action. Most real fans are also knowledgeable enough to criticize the flaws within the tour, as well they should. In fact, the tour could benefit itself by reading the comments that such fans contribute to tennis forums.

People who watch women's tennis and then insult the players because of their gender should have something better to do, it would seem, than to preoccupy themselves with a group whose members they hold in contempt. And the name-calling is not excusable because of "the culture" or "the times." Indeed, it is the culture and the times that create such a climate of hate. Calling women "bitches" and "sluts" is unacceptable in any context. And the argument of  "free speech" is a legal one (and one I support), but it has little to do with societal rules, in which people of all classes, genders, races, ages, etc. are granted equal respect.

Some of the woman-haters go for a double--or even triple, portion of bigotry--by also attacking players who are African American, or who are "suspected" of being gay. These people--and there are multitudes of them--do not know how to criticize the behaviors of a player without also attacking the player's gender, race and real or suspected sexual orientation. And some of them skip the behavior criticism altogether, and just make bigoted comments or "jokes" about the players.

Almost all Web forums have rules about hate speech and bigotry, but I have never seen those rules enforced when it comes to bigotry toward women. It is up to the rest of us to demand that they be enforced. That won't be easy, since sexism and misogyny are considered acceptable forms of bigotry. But as long as those who despise women insist on watching women's tennis, their expressions of hate and contempt--which affect all women and girls--need to be kept among themselves.

Tennis Channel reaches new depths of sexism

Tennis Channel has a series called "Best of Five." This series includes the five biggest upsets, five worst calls, five best one-slam wonders, etc. This morning, for the first (and only) time, I saw "Five Best Breakups." Rated at number 3 was "black widow" Martina Hingis, whose ATP romantic partners' careers tended to dive after they became involved with her. Of course, with the exception of Radek Stepanek, she was not involved with players who had especially high rankings, anyway.

I don't have any problem with the whole "black widow" thing. It's mildly amusing (though I can think of tennis breakups more deserving of being in the top five--the other breakups all involved parnters, coaches, etc.). But Tennis Channel, just like Tennis magazine, made the segment all about how Hingis "went through men" on the tour. Not only did she "go through" a "lot" of men--she was a "good date" because she "took care" of them.

In short, the segment is a disgusting piece of sexism. So Hingis dated men on the tour. So she had sex with them--oh, no!--that makes her a slut, doesn't it? Because that's close to what Tennis Channel (and Tennis) said. But she gets a bit of a pass because she "took care" of them.

Sexism aside for a moment, it's only logical that tennis players are likely to date one another; it's not like they have time to hang out in their hometowns and meet romantic partners socially. There are several men on the ATP Tour who date women on the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour, and there are a few who dated several WTA players, but the sports media does not crudely imply that they are trashy and indecent, or announce that they "go through a lot of women."

The fact that--with regard to the sexual double standard (and all gender double standards)--nothing has changed since the 1950s is maddening. Tennis Channel should be ashamed, but hey--we're talking about the organization that kept Justin Gimelstob on its payroll.

My U.S. Open top 10

Oh hey there, US Open champ!@iga_swiatek with her newest trophy on a New York night pic.twitter.com/x86CFPjDTn

— Jimmie48 Photography (@JJlovesTennis) September 11, 2022

Here are my top U.S. Open occurrences, in descending order:

10. Look who's in the final!: She didn't win (Alexandra Eala did that), but Lucie Havlickova from the Czech Republic made it to the final, and it's no surprise. Havlickova won the junior French Open singles title, and in 2021, Linda Noskova won the French Open. The Czech female tennis machine is a mighty thing.

9. Storming through the draw: Storm Sanders, with partner John Peers, won the mixed doubles championship. The Australian team defeated Kirsten Flipkens and Edouard Roger-Vasselin 4-6, 6-4, [10]-[7] in the final.

8. Sexism is as sexism does: You can name the facility after Billie Jean King, but your true colors will always come out. The U.S. Open's Twitter account was dismissive of women in so many ways--referring to "sportsmanship" between the two singles finalists, for example, and announcing that Matteo Berrettini and Jannik Sinner were the first Italians to ever reach the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open (Flavia Pennetta and Roberta Vinci would like a word). But they outdid themselves when they drew a "cute" cartoon that was intended to insult Richard Gasquet (in a "fun" way, of course), by calling him a woman (in the most vulgar way imaginable).

7. French flair/French perseverance: Alizé Cornet began her U.S. Open campaign by upsetting the defending champion, but the most signiicant part of the Frenchwoman's run was that it was her 63rd consecutive appearance in a major tournament. Oh là là!

6. Hot wheels: Diede De Groot defended both her singles and doubles titles at this year's U.S. Open. She defeated Yui Kamiji (yet again) in three sets to win the singles title, and she and partner Aniek Van Koot defeated Kamiji and Kgothatso Montjane to win the doubles title. This is De Groot's fifth U.S. Open singles victory in a row, and it's also her second consecutive Grand Slam--last year, it was actually a Golden Slam. During the trophy ceremony, the Dutch star acknowledged the U.S. Open for expanding the wheelchair draw. Diede the Great has now won 16 major singles titles and 15 major doubles titles.

5. Giving live-streaming a bad name: It was really difficult to watch the Open because ESPN's streaming was pure trash from day one. The screen would turn black, the screen would disappear altogether, a message would appear, telling you that the match you were watching wasn't included in your package. The only "solution" was to continually reboot the app, and that didn't always work. To their credit, the ESPN tech staff responded immediately to requests for help, but they insisted that the problems were at the users' end, and they were quite obviously (people all over the country were having the same issues) not.

4. There should have been a garden: So many top seeds and notable players fell in the first two rounds, it was shocking. Gone in the first round were defending champion Emma Raducanu, Simona Halep (a favorite to win the tournament), two-time champion Naomi Osaka, Wimbledon champion Elena Rybakina, and Dasha Kasatkina. In the second round, we lost 3rd seed Maria Sakkari and 4th seed Paula Badosa.

3. End of a golden era: The great Serena Williams retired from professional tennis at this year's U.S. Open. After her opening round, there was a ceremony to honor her, and--after she was defeated in the third round by Ajla Tomljanovic--her exit was an emotionally touching event. The six-time U.S. Open singles champion is a sports icon for the ages, and her appearance (in her gorgeous kit) in New York one final time is a top story in 2022, not just in the sports world, but throughout the culture at large.

2. History is made: Barbora Krejcikova and Katerina Siniakova, seeded third, are the new U.S. Open champions; the Czech team defeated Caty McNally and Taylor Townsend 3-6, 7-5, 6-1 in the exciting final, despite being down a set and 1-4. But the new championship--the team's sixth major trophy--is part of a much greater story: Krejcikova and Siniakova are the first doubles team in history to win all four majors, the WTA Finals, and a gold medal in the Olympic Games. I'm calling it the Super Golden Career Slam, and it is very impressive. Sadly, however, Krejcikova and Siniakova were not able to try for a Grand Slam this year--despite also winning the Australian Open and Wimbledon--because Krejcikova was ill during the French Open.

1. Iga! Iga! Iga!: Iga Swiatek took on a kind of Princess and the Pea role at this year's U.S. Open. Before the tournament, she said that she didn't have high expectations because it was difficult for her to play with the lightweight tennis balls that are provided for the women at the U.S. Open (former world number 1 Ash Barty had the same issue), and that this was a problem that many WTA players had. Perhaps because of that, throughout the event, she was constantly replacing her racket because she wasn't satisfied with the tension of the strings. There was a low level of frustration involved with her on several occasions.

But never mind--the world number 1 walked away the 2022 champion. That's how good Swiatek is--whatever is bothering her, she either figures out or finds a way to ignore. Her countrywoman, Aga Radwanska, once remarked that good tennis players didn't need sports psychologists (or their equivalent)--I forget her exact words. I wonder what Radwanska thinks now, as the ever-present Daria Abramowicz has indeed been a major factor in forming Swiatek's mental strength.

The two most winning players on the tour, Swiatek and Ons Jabeur, contested the final, and--to the surprise of most fans, I would imagine--Swiatek totally dominated Jabeur for a set and a half. She went on to win the match, 6-2, 7-6, and thus became the first Polish woman to win the U.S. Open. Ealier in the year, Swiatek won the Sunshine Double and the French Open (for the second time).

After the trophy ceremony, ESPN invited the new champion to sit at the desk and chat, but it was sometimes hard to hear the conversation because a massive throng was yelling "Iga! Iga! Iga!" This went on for some time, and is undoubtedly a taste of what is to come as the 21-year-old Swiatek continues to make her mark on the tennis world.

The myth continues

This article in the Desert Sun, like so many other articles and commentaries, goes to great length to promote the myth that focusing on the perceived physical beauty of some tour players "promotes" women's tennis. The article even goes so far as to say that the obsession with Anna Kournikova's looks "elevated" women's tennis. What the obsession with Kournikova's looks elevated was her bank account, and the bank accounts of many publishers. To this day, when I talk with non-fans about women's tennis, they do not know the difference between Kournikova and Maria Sharapova, they have not bought tickets to matches because of Sports Illustrated swimsuit spreads, and they do not have an increased appreciation for how hard the women on the tour work. And while it is true that Kournikova's presence did inspire many young Russian girls to play tennis, we should remember that Kournikova's talent--despite her problems--probably had a lot to do with that inspiration.

Promoting female players' legs, breasts and long hair at the expense of promoting their athleticism is sexism, pure and simple. Of course, it is natural for people to find some players--men and women--more physically attractive than others. But promoting female athletes (and really, that would be certain types of Caucasian female athletes) as sex symbols promotes and sustains the treatment of women we have been trying so desparately to stop for so long. Promoting male athletes as sex symbols is not my cup of tea, but it does not harm the men because their athleticism and achievement are automatically noted and praised--that is a given. But that is not so with women, and therefore, once again, we trade talent and achievement for sex. Why people do not understand this basic tenet of feminism is a puzzlement to me.

Larry Scott and Steve Simon's calling the tour women "girls" is shameful sexism, but I doubt if anyone will call them on it.

Finally, you have to love Rosebud's comment about nude posing.

Carillo 1, Allaster 0

Mary Carillo interviewed WTA chairwoman Stacey Allaster today, and the WTA's leader--despite making a few comments about women's DNA being different from men's (seriously, she said that)--assured all that something was going to be "done" about the "grunting" on the tour. In the past, Allaster has tried to defend players from the barrage of ridiculous criticism leveled at them, while still trying to take the criticism seriously. Today, she was much firmer in insisting that a "solution" is on the way, and that this solution will involve "objective" (as if) measurement. In other words, there will be some type of decibel measuring device available.

Carillo, to my surprise, reflected exactly what I was thinking (at least some of it) when she immediately told Allaster she thought it was good that Allaster had found a way for someone to make money, in addition to solving the "problem." There was then an uncomfortable lull in the conversation.

Throughout history, women and girls have had everything on them and in them measured and examined and tested to assure that they were "pure" or "qualified" or "hot" enough to do everything from marry to serve drinks on a plane. Now the WTA wants to add yet another invasive measuring device that involves women's bodies. To borrow a phrase from Serena Williams--Go WTA women's equality campaign!

The 5th and 6th seeds, both major champions, played poorly and lost in the first round of the U.S. Open. Women still make less money playing tennis than men do, and they are expected to play fewer sets than men at the majors. The tour's injury list is long and impressive. Commentators and writers refer to 28-year-old women as children. On-court coaching, which fosters dependence and makes women look ridiculous, continues. The tour has problems, many of which are caused by sexism. One of those problems is the perception that it is somehow "wrong" for women to grunt or yell.

Maybe a really strong campaign against sexism and a closer look at the tour's expectations would be in order? Of course it would be, but it won't happen because the WTA is busy tending to important things like catering to a culture that doesn't want women to be real people and doesn't want female athletes to be real athletes.

Measure that.

Complaint central

One of my parents was British, and I developed a lifelong interest in tennis because of a Wimbledon tournament I saw when I was young, but over the years, the tournament has become my least favorite of the majors. Here is what's bothering me this year (not all of which has to do with the Wimbledon itself):

Linespeople wearing long sleeves, and linesmen having to wear ties
How dreadfully uncomfortable and hot is that?! I think putting the lineswomen in skirts is ridiculous, too, but at least there (probably) isn't a comfort factor there.

Putting twice as many men's matches as women's matches on the show courts
That could change next week, but for now, it's bothering me.

An absence of longer rallies
But without Martinez Sanchez-type flare

Announcers saying "Wim-bl-DEN" (accent theirs, not mine)

Reading and hearing analyses of the evolving relationship between Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters
Does anyone care?

The non-stop chattering of John McEnroe

The outrageous sexism of the British press, which is even worse than the press in my country

The ongoing sexism of the tournament, though--after getting caught putting the "more attractive" women (excuse me--"girls") on the better courts last year, tournament officials have, at least ostensibly, toned it down a bit (however, the honorifics are not only sexist, but ridiculously inaccurate)

The decision to not schedule Serena Williams on Centre Court the day the Queen visited
I know Serena got to  meet the Queen (and vice versa), and I know that the Queen didn't stay for the women's match, anyway, but these facts really have nothing to do with the decision made by tournament officials. And with Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal both scheduled, there is little room for misinterpretation.

Is there anything I like about Wimbledon?, you may be asking. Yes. I enjoy seeing the players in their whites one time a year (but where is the clay?!). I also very much enjoy listening to Virginia Wade and Simon Reed. And I actually like seeing the linespeople dressed up a bit, but not in clothing that is obviously not appropriate for their jobs.

What I like best about Wimbledon is seeing certain players who really shine on fast courts. Wimbledon gives them an opportunity to play at their best. The grass season, however, is undoubtedly too short.

Sexism, Serena and Kim

Ann Killion, ironically writing for a sexist publication, makes several points about gender and the U.S. Open with which I strongly agree. There is no doubt in my mind that those in power in sport (and everywhere else)--both women and men--think it is just fine for men to lose their tempers, and "wrong" for women to do so. (I even saw a comment on a blog suggesting that Williams be gender-tested because her rage was so great.) Serena Williams, while often publicly embracing patriarchal values off the court, nevertheless--as an athlete--rubs against the grain of those values.

I also agree with Killion that way too much has been made of Clijsters' motherhood. It was indeed a great feat for Clijsters to have to begin her training from scratch after giving birth so that she could play again, and I applaud her hard work and determination. But the "balance" question is driving me nuts, as it always does. Clijsters "balances" motherhood and a profession the way millions of women--and men--do, every day.

However, I do not agree with Killion that the the line call was "ticky-tacky." What is the point of having rules if officials arbitrarily decide they should not be enforced at certain points of a match or a tournament? And--having seen the Tennis Channel footage--I also disagree with the "questionable" part.

Finally, I disagree that Williams' act was merely an "outburst." It was at first, but then it became something else when physicality was added to it. I do agree with Killion, however, that the chair umpire could have found something to do besides just sit there. And I do join others in thinking that a few "outbursts" from previous decades also crossed the line, but were tolerated.

So although I cannot go along with everything Killion has to say, I'm really glad that someone has devoted an entire column to the sexism aspect of what happened on Saturday.

As for those who make sexist and racist attacks on Serena and on the lineswoman: They appear to be less interested in discovering and analyzing what happened than they are in exploiting the event as an opportunity to express their disdain for those who are neither male nor Caucasian.

Watch it with the sound off

I haven't had the television on for very long, but I have already heard enough sexism to convince me to turn the sound off:

Kevin Frasier believes that women automatically take their husbands' surnames.

Dick Enberg apparently believes that all police officers and firefighters are men (What decade are we in? To recognize September 11 by thanking a "policeman" or a "fireman" utilizes language that is all the rage again, I know, but that doesn't make it any less sexist--makes it more so.)

Earlier in the tournament:

John McEnroe found a way (I knew he would) to make fun of Denis Istomin because he is coached by his mother.

Commentators continued, ad nauseum, to ask Kim Clijsters about the "balance" in her life.

Commentators regularly call female players, even those in their late 20s, "girls."

Martina Navratilova, who routinely asks the other commentators to please call the players "women," referred to them as "guys."

Headlines proclaimed that Schiavone "does a Federer," when--in reality--Schiavone has been hitting 'tweeners for years.

Virginia Wade is carrying the message about women's desperation to "keep looking young."

As relentless as the sexism* is, there are also plenty of other comments, unrelated to gender, that reveal other prejudices. For example:

Enberg believes that if you are Russian and read Russian literature, you are " a serious sort."

A commentator actually bragged about mispronouncing a player's name (then immediately insulted a commentator who regularly mispronounces a name).

Liezel Huber continued her non-stop USA flag-waving every time she spoke.

And finally, in a moment of significant tone-deafness, Mike Bryan accepted a stole from the ambassadors of India and Pakistan, and immediately suggested he could "make a shirt out of it." (Perhaps his doubles partner, Huber, who "came from a third world country with only a suitcase and a dream," could educate him.)

*There are people all over the Worldwide Web who express so much concern about racism and ethnic prejudice, but the vile gender-related (and sometimes homophobic) things they are saying about Kim and Venus (and, at other times, just about any woman who is playing) demonstrate bigotry at its most disgusting.

The oldest--and weakest--defense of sexist language

I recently reported that Ana Ivanovic had received the unfortunately-named "Karen Krantzcke Sportsman of the Year" award from the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour. Sexist language does not belong anywhere, but it is especially out of place in an organization which purports to fight for gender equality. I pointed out this mixed message to the tour, and received a reply that "'Sportswoman' is not a word."

Here is the text of the letter I sent back:

Of course it's a word...the insistence on using sexist language because the lexicon has always refused to acknowledge females is just one more way of advancing sexism. Any word with "man" in it can also be a word with "woman" in it.

Think back to the time--not that long ago--when we were told that there was no such word as "chairman." There was "no such word" because our culture could not imagine a female being in charge. Or think back to the time when we were told there was no such word as "policewoman" or "postwoman" or "repairwoman." Continuing to call a woman a man acknowledges a belief that male is the dominant gender; that is called sexism. Nothing is more important than language. The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour--of all organizations--should be sensitive to the reality that the culture in general--including the sports media--treats women's sports as an afterthought. Calling women men advances that tradition. Calling Ivanovic a "sportsman" sends a very clear message that a sporting virtue is a male quality, and we all know that it is not.

And anyway, the tour does not have to do anything "innovative" to correct the problem. That is because the word "sportswoman" has been part of the official lexicon for some time. You will find it in all of the major dictionaries: Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, OE, Random House, etc. So even using a very narrow, literal definition--it is indeed a word

Sony Ericsson WTA Tour promoting gender equality--right.

Here we go again....

In 2022, Hailey Baptiste, in an interview in Charleston, told Pam Shriver that every shot in tennis was executed better by ATP players. (She also revealed that he'd named her pet after one of the ATP's kings of sexism--a man who was given a pass throughout his career for that sexism.) No one noticed. Well, I did, and I reported on it, but Baptiste was/is hardly a tennis household name.

Now world number 2 Aryna Sabalenka has revealed that she prefers to watch men' tennis; she stated that there was more strategy in the men' game and that she finds it more interesting to watch. Now three (so far) camps have formed on X: those who think that Sabalenka has betrayed the WTA, those who think that' it's ridiculous to ever watch women's tennis, and those who think that women' tennis is fine, but that it's more exciting to watch players who are faster and stronger.

The second camp has always been with us and always will be. But, as I said to someone in the third camp (and yes, it was a total waste of my time to say it), the belief that stronger and faster, i.e., male attributes, are "better" is a a product of socialization. What if we were taught that crafty and flexible were "better"? Or that the greatest skill lies in playing while sitting down and rolling on wheels? 

The second camp (and perhaps some in the third) rely on the "a man could beat Serena Williams" argument. Well, duh. Men are physically stronger--haven't they heard? The reason that I hated the Battle of the Sexes and wish that Billie Jean King had never participated in it is that it promoted the idea that tennis is tennis, when actually, men's and women's tennis are very different from one another. King shouldn't have had to defeat a man to prove that she was an elite athlete. Yet the same people who like to remind us that men and women are different seem to forget that when it comes to sport.

I wish that Sabalenka hadn't said what she said, but she's never had much of an editor, so it wasn't a surprise. I've never believed that stronger and faster is "better;" my favorite player of all time to watch was Aga Radwanska. I appreciate and enjoy (most of the time) hard hitting, but I don't consider it to be superior hitting. 

I used to watch a lot of ATP matches, but I don't now--not because of the tennis--which I enjoy--but because so many of the players are so sexist, and I don't enjoy watching people who consider me inferior.

The Sabalenka comment will be a thing for a while, and then fans and so-called fans will move on to something else. But the belief that male attributes are always superior to female attributes will, I'm afraid, not fade away.

Random thoughts about Wimbledon

The Centre Court roof is a good thing, but more thought needs to put into when to keep it on and when to remove it. Wimbledon officials were quite defensive about the humidity complaints, but they need to address the issue. One very good thing about the roof--it kept the rain away!

Officials also need to address the issue of court assignments for the top women players. Whether you believe that sexism is involved in the decision-making (which many of us do, with good reason), or that selections are made on a less offensive basis, there is still a problem.

I wish the junior girls' final were not scheduled the same time as the women's final. The top junior players, in my opinion, should be permitted to watch the women's final.

For those who live in the U.S.--perhaps you also noticed a sudden gender consciousness in Pam Shriver, of all people. On more than one occasion--sometimes directly, sometimes implicitly--she brought up the subject of sexism.

There were some nice outfits. I especially liked Maria Sharapova's well-designed dress, and I liked the simplicity of Amelie Mauresmo's. And despite the jeers I heard about her retro look, I thought Victoria Azarenka's headband was just right. It's always a bit of a challenge, for those who care, to stand out--but not too much--in white.

Wimbledon and the media

I have already discussed the extreme sexism of the British press with regard to Wimbledon (and everything else, for that matter). In the U.S., on both ESPN and Tennis Channel--and I'm sure NBC will be no exception--the mispronunciation of players' names continues, with Pam Shriver taking this offense to new depths. And I also continue to hear those lazy, tennis-demeaning other-sports pseudo-metaphors almost all the time.

Today, describing himself, Darren Cahill used a pseudonym for a word that--in the context in which he was speaking--meant that he was weak and scared--like a woman. Since I hear people more intelligent than Cahill using the same term frequently, I certainly wasn't surprised, but doesn't anyone ever stop and think about what s/he is actually saying? (And yes, I realize that many people actually believe that weak and scared = woman.)

Among the mispronunciations, sloppy tennis-insulting metaphors and the sexism, there often isn't a lot to like about television commentary. But I would be willing to tolerate at least some of the nonsense if ESPN could just remember that women are playing tennis at Wimbledon. I no longer have access to Wimbledon Live--the U.S. is now excluded from using the service--so if a match isn't on ESPN (or NBC on the weekends), I cannot watch it. And women's matches have been few and far between on ESPN so far. If we're lucky, we get to see a segment of a women's match. The exception, of course, involves matches in which Venus and Serena Williams play.

The Williams sisters are very important people at Wimbledon, and one can understand ESPN's preoccupation with showing their matches. But who wants to watch an entire match consisting of Serena plowing over an opponent when there is a really interesting WTA match going on at the same time? I don't. But for now, it's lots of Williams sisters and only snippets--if we're lucky (not a moment of the Vesnina-Cibulkova match)--of other women's matches.

Swiatek leads contenders, but there's fierce competition to win the U.S. Open

WOMEN'S DRAW HAS ARRIVED!

Iga Swiatek's quarter includes three Grand Slam champions. pic.twitter.com/YYDxmpub0w

— US Open Tennis (@usopen) August 24, 2023

Six months ago, I would have said that the three women most likely to win the U.S. Open were Iga Swiatek, Barbora Krejicova and Aryna Sabalenka, with the first two being more likely. Despite winning the French Open in 2021, hard courts appear to be the Czech star's best surface, and--serving as Swiatek's kryptonite on that surface--her confidence kept growing.

But something has happened to Krejcikova in both singles and doubles, and as I write this, the slump continues. Whatever it is, I hope she gets it straightened out soon. However--short of a very fast cure--Krejcikova is no longer a serious U.S. Open contender.

Wbo is? 

Well, the defending champion, of course. Though more players are figuring out ways to beat the world number 1, she's still extremely likely to successfully defend her title. 

Two other players are also big contenders, but there are caveats. Elena Rybakina's chances are excellent--if she's healthy, following the debacle that was Montreal; Rybakina's retirement in Cincinnati may turn out to be her saving grace. Then there's reigning Australian Open champion Sabalenka, who has recently shown those old tendencies to let her head get the better of her in big matches.

Last year's runner-up, Ons Jabeur. Jabeur was the runner-up at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, and this year, she was the runner-up at Wimbledon again. Jabeur is a wonderful competitor, but all this coming in second must surely be taking some kind of toll on her. Nevertheless, she's a contender, and this could very well be the event at which she finally gets the big trophy.

Also high on the list are U.S. players Jessica Pegula and Coco Gauff. Gauff just won in both Washington, DC and Cincinnati (her first 1000 event victory). Her new coach, Brad Gilbert, says that they haven't had time yet to work on Gauff's errant forehand, but winning DC and Cincinnati was a statement in itself. The 19-year old has indeed arrived, and she should be a major threat in New York. She may have to be: She's theoretically drawn to meet Swiatek in the quarterfinals, and if that match occurs, she'll have to call on whatever got her past the world number 1 in the Cincinnati semifinals.

Pegula won Montreal, and while winning a pre-major tournament doesn't really mean that much statistically, the victory was undoubtedly a boost to her confidence. Pegula doesn't have an enviable first round--she plays perennial giant-killer Camila Giorgi.

Finally, the physically vulnerable Karolina Muchova--if she stays healthy (and oh, how I hope she does)--belongs in this circle of U.S. Open contenders.

But who else could cause big trouble? My first pick is Jen Brady. Yes, she's just coming back from a two-year injury hiatus, but her game looks great; it's almost as though she never left. Brady has that easy, fluid power that makes her a hard court threat. Another potential trouble-maker is Liudmila Samsonova, whose long-examined potential has recently blossomed on U.S. hard courts.

Certainly, Wimbledon champion Marketa Vondrousova could put the hurt on someone with a high seed, and--if the planets so align themselves--Alona Ostapenko can be quite dangerous. Given her splendid performance at Wimbledon, Elina Svitolina now looks like a serious threat, and former finalists Madison Keys and Karolina Pliskova are not to be ignored.

There have been a lot of injuries in the last several weeks. Rybakina sustained an injury in Montreal and, as stated, had to retire in Cincinnati. Paula Badosa's back injury returned (stress fracture), Venus Williams recently sustained a knee injury, and Belinda Bencic rolled her ankle in Montreal. 

This year's U.S. Open poster honors Billie Jean King and the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Open's decision to give equal prize money to men and women. Had it not been for King, we have no way of knowing when--if ever--the U.S. Open would have done so.

September will also mark the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Sexes, which I have always opposed, and which I wish hadn't happened. The event fed right into the false belief that men's and women's tennis (and sports, in general) are the same, and that therefore men--who are stronger and usually faster--are "better" tennis players and "better" athletes. Margaret Court had already made the mistake of playing Bobby Riggs and had lost to him, which took nothing away from Margaret Court as an athlete, but--instead of challenging the sexism of believing that male players are "better"--there was a rush to play another match so that Riggs could be defeated.

Having said that, I do recommend the film, Battle of the Sexes, not because of its enactment of the event, but because of the acting, which is superb, and because it gives viewers a very good look at the ugliness of sexism in sports, which hasn't really changed that much since 1973. In Billie Jean King's wonderful memoir, All In, she describes how acting in the film changed Emma Stone forever. Playing the role of BJK (and putting on several pounds of muscle) empowered Stone to believe in herself on a new level and to become a feminist activist in the film industry.

With fans like these, who needs enemies?

Recently, when discussing Jannik Sinner's drug ban, Serena Williams said, "I can't help but think about Maria Sharapova all this time. I can't help but feel for her." In a related statement, Sam Stosur said: "My point of view used to be very black and white. You get caught, you are done, no matter what. But I have to say, in this instance, where all those things are the facts, like it’s been proven from many, many doctors and people going through this, a player shouldn’t be banned for this, in my opinion, you shouldn’t be now one or two years banned, which is normally what would happen.”

Nice, but what should have come next was a public apology to Sharapova, whom--without having any relevant information--Stosur harshly criticized upon hearing that the Russian star had been suspended. It didn't come.

I have written a lot about WADA, etc., and the gross unfairness shown toward players like Sharapova and Simona Halep. Craig Reedie, who was president of WADA at the time, publicly stated that--because Sharapova made more money than WADA had in its budget--he was glad to see her brought down. That statement alone was grounds for a lawsuit, but Sharapova didn't file one. And both Sharapova and Halep were (and continue to be) trashed by so-called fans who are familiar with either part of the evidence or--in some cases--none at all.

Now the target is world number 2 Iga Swiatek, who is in what some might call a slump. At any rate, something is wrong, and that includes something wrong on clay courts, which Swiatek has dominated for some time. Many observers are certain (because they have supernatural vision and information-gathering powers) that the problem is the Polish star's mental coach. Others are quick to say that the problem is that Swiatek can no longer "use drugs."

I have no idea what the problem is, though it isn't illogical to wonder whether Swiatek's suspension had a profound psychological effect on her. But that, too, is just a guess. Only Swiatek knows what's really bothering her.

Today's a good day to remember that some of you judge these players way too harshly based on a very limited set of information.

It's always a good idea to assume that you don't know the full picture. No amount of time spent on this app will change that.

— Jimmie48 Photography (@JJlovesTennis) May 1, 2025

Iga Swiatek is an easy target. A rather charming nerd, she prefers Lego construction and map-drawing in the clay to creating TikTok videos (though Aryna Sabalenka has gotten her to do that) and making red carpet appearances. And, according to the hopelessly sexist Jimmy Arias, she's bad for women's tennis because her cap doesn't allow us to see her face ("smile!)". An enthusiastic Swiftie and an avid reader, the world number 2 is intelligent and articulate, but those qualities don't seem to matter much to many who call themselves tennis fans. 

This is also a good time to mention that the Ukranian players are still repeatedly bashed on social media for not shaking hands with the Russian and Belarusian players. So, for the hundredth time, they cannot shake hands for fear of having the resulting photos and videos used as propaganda. Is that really so hard to understand? Apparently, it is.

The WTA's top players--Sabalenka, Swiatek, Pegula, Gauff, Svitolina, etc.--are constantly criticized for being too inconsistent, too disappointing, too rich, too lazy, too fill-in-the-blank. The fact of the matter is that they work very hard all the time, they're under a lot of stress, and they're human. They have to deal with fans, sponsors, their teams, constant travel, intense training, injuries, increasing threats from sports gamblers, and questionable drug accusations and bans. 

I remember once, many years ago, sitting in the stands of a small court in Charleston. A player had a long discussion with the chair umpire about whether a ball was out, and about the examination of the mark on the clay. A man across from me yelled at her to “shut up and play,” To this day, I regret that I didn’t yell back at him, “You’re here for recreation—she’s trying to make a living,” (I cleaned that up.) 

ATP players also get their share of unjust criticism (while getting almost no criticism at all for their sexism and misogyny), but they don't get criticized nearly as much for their appearance, and they don't get threatened with sexual assault and rape (though they do get threatened), nor do they get told on a regular basis that they are inferior athletes because of their gender. 

As I've written before, being a sports fan is a personal thing. We identify with athletes, are inspired by them, and project all manner of our own issues onto them. Sports is a kind of shorthand for the lives we all live--enjoy victory or suffer defeat, play it safe or take risks, keep trying or give up. That involves a lot of drama, and a lot of emotion, and that can be exciting. But with increasing access to misinformation and disinformation, an obvious deficit of critical thinking skills among many people, and no end in sight to sexism and misogyny--the world of women's tennis has become increasingly fraught with falsehoods, hostility and all manner of unpleasantness. 

Fortunately, there's a lot of positive and interesting news to report about women's tennis, and there are several organizations and individuals who report it--and who also report the not-so-positive news in a rational, fact-based way.

Azarenka defeats Williams, wins Doha

The WTA called it a "dream final," and for Victoria Azarenka, it was probably a dream come true. The world number 1 (well, at least until tomorrow) defeated her tennis nemesis, Serena Williams, 7-6, 2-6, 6-3 in the final of the Qatar Total Open in Doha. Azarenka is now 2-11 against Williams, who will become the world number 1 when the rankings are published tomorrow.

Azarenka had to save a set point in the first set tiebreak, and when she won that tiebreak, it was hard not to think about the fact that--71 consecutive times, after winning the first set--Azarenka has won the match. That's quite a statistic. The top seed's serve abandoned her in the second set, however, and she was broken fairly easily by Williams, who won the set 6-2.

The third set was a test of Azarenka's mental strength. She was a bit shaky as she served the first game, but then something clicked into place, and the next thing you knew, she was up 3-0. That had to make her feel good, but she wasn't facing just anyone--she was playing Serena Williams. No worries, though. Azarenka went up 5-2, though Williams held for 3-5. Azarenka's final service game was smooth and easy, and she can now add Doha to her list of titles.

Williams was clearly what we would call "out of sorts" in this match, which lasted almost 2 1/2 hours. The new world number 1's only true weakness is her footwork, and when she's having an o.o.s. day, it becomes a major problem. By contrast, Azarenka's footwork was admirable, and her retrieving was nothing short of brilliant. This match was very enjoyable to watch, largely because of Azarenka's relentless return game.

Once again, commentators failed to pronounce the name of the country in which they were broadcasting, sometimes even mispronouncing it two different ways (both incorrect) in the same sentence.

And that brings me to a discussion I watched (well, I watched part of it) on Tennis Channel yesterday. A group of experts moaned about the good old days when the Williams sisters were at the top of the tour, or when Martina Hingis ruled. Their reason? Those players were well known by fans, and today's top players aren't. Well, whose fault is that? With the exception of Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova, the media machine has pretty much ignored the WTA's top players--except to launch constant attacks on Azarenka. The WTA doesn't seem to care about this situation, and perhaps it's just as well, because a strong marketing effort to promote female athletes always means a strong effort to promote sexism and misogyny.

Play begins in Dubai tomorrow. If Azarenka gets to the final, she can be world number 1 again. That is, unless Williams gets to the final, too. In that case, Azarenka would have to beat Williams again in order to take the top ranking back.

Passing shots

Conchita Martinez has been hired by Tennis Australia to give some guidance to some of the players.

Christina McHale, who received a wild card into the BNP Paribas Open main draw, is currently working with USTA coach Jay Gooding.

Surely by now, readers have heard about the Northwestern University computer study that generated the result that Jimmy Connors is the greatest tennis player of all time. Aside from the fact that discussions of who is "the greatest of all time" are ridiculous to begin with, this particular study has another flaw not being talked about: Connors, according to the study, is actually the greatest male player of all time, but the assumption by those who designed the study was that only men could even be considered. Such an assumption once again promotes the false (but very popular, with such players as Tim Henman, John McEnroe, Andy Murray, and John Isner "ranking" WTA players within the ATP) notion that the men's game and the women's game are the same. So please add sexism to the flaws in the study that are being discussed throughout the tennis media. The scientists at Northwestern are, of course, not alone. Members of the sports media constantly talk about the "greatest player of all time" when they are actually referring to the "greatest male player of all time."

bleacher report picks Jennifer Capriati's defeat of Martina Hingis in the 2002 Australian Open final as number 34 in the "The 50 Greatest Comebacks in Sports History." There are three tennis moments in the top 50.

Here are some photos from Maria Sharapova's Tatler photo shoot.

Retired doubles great Virginia Ruano Pascual has been named the new director of the Open Castilla Y Leon Villa de El Espinar. Ruano Pascual won 43 titles, including ten majors.

From Jon Wertheim: "...a recently retired player was telling me that she's observed a rash of eating disorders among her colleagues. 'If I see a player's results suddenly fall, the first thing I assume is that she either has an eating disorder or a complicated relationship with her coach.' She says that if it weren't for eating disorders, the top 20 would look very different."

U.S. Wimbledon commentators selected

First, the bad news: Dick Enberg, who should have been fired long ago for his inappropriate treatment of Sony Ericsson WTA Tour players, is back for his 25th anniversary of calling Wimbledon matches. "Oh my!" simply does not do justice to this news--more like "Oh please."

In the ESPN booth with the out-of-control Enberg will be Cliff Drysdale, and they will be joined by Mary Joe Fernandez, Mary Carillo, Darren Cahill, Bud Collins, Brad Gilbert (back from a two-year absence), Luke Jensen, and Chris Fowler. Unfortunately, they will also be joined by Patrick McEnroe. And the "roving reporter" will once again be the witty but ultimately annoying and manipulative Pam Shriver (who also deserved to be sacked for her meddling in the 2005 women's French Open semifinal and final).

Some things never change. We can expect mispronunciation of players' names from everyone but Collins and Carillo. We can expect sexism from Enberg and Shriver, with some also tossed in by Fowler and McEnroe. We can expect Fernandez and Drysdale to talk about Sharapova as though she were the world's only perfect human. We can expect Shriver to manufacture "controversies" that do not exist. And we can expect me to tie myself to the chair so that I won't be tempted to throw a brick at the screen every time McEnroe says "Droppa!"