Jun
20
Reasons to dislike Wimbledon
Filed Under Sport | Leave a Comment
A strange spectre will linger over SW19 over the next fortnight. Not sports fans in the meaningful sense of the word, but Wimbledon Watchers. People who don’t follow tennis, who will be surprised to discover Roger Federer isn’t one of the two top seeds. People who aren’t sure who the number 1 woman is in the world. These are strange people for whom a sporting event is more about the social occasion, the food and drink. We will spend the next fortnight reading of the wonderful tennis tournament in SW19 so as a counterbalance, here are 7 good reasons to dislike Wimbledon.
#1 Paying women less
How can any organisation get away with paying women less to do the same job as men? A 3 set game may last less time than a 5 set match but that isn’t the point. The organisers don’t charge less to see women play. Many women are valued more highly by sponsors than men. In any other aspect of British life, legislation would force the organisers to pay women an equal amount. Don’t expect to read much about this over the next fortnight.
#2 Distorting the debate about British tennis
Every fortnight we have a wailing and gnashing of teeth at the failure of Britons to do better at tennis. For those two weeks of the year, tennis courts are full. Britain is the centre of the sport. And then we turn back to the football and the sport continues elsewhere. We still have too few people playing tennis, too few courts and too few coaches. It should be of no surprise that Britons aren’t better at tennis. If it wasn’t for Wimbeldon, we wouldn’t be surprised.
#3 Smug satisfaction
Expect to read lots of guff in the next fortnight about how WImbledon in The Best Tennis Tournament In The World. Most of it appears to be based on polite foreigners humouring journalists. As if playing (or, quite often, not playing) in rainy London in June is actually better than an Australian winter or Paris in spring. Unlike other sports, there is no competitive environment which awards Wimbeldon its Major status. Do better-trained ball girls and boys really create a better tournament?
#4 Andrew Castle
Talking of smug satisfaction, Andrew Castle is the embodiment of the problems of Wimbledon – the leader of the Wimbledon Watchers. The ubiquitous ITV presenter is diverted to tennis for a fortnight because he once picked up a racket at some point in the 1980s before going back to daytime TV. Never knowingly penetrating, rarely insightful but never lacking in a sense of satisfaction.
#5 Faux formality
Is there anything more silly than the faux formality of Wimbledon? It’s no wonder that British children grow up thinking that tennis is about quasi-militaristic changes of the ball, servants handing players towels and umpires in uniform. Can you remember what they wear in France, or how the ball boys in America throw the ball? No, me neither. Perhaps it’s a fond reminder to Daily Telegraph readers of the years of Empire.
#6 Suspicious of winners
Tim Henman was Wimbledon and Wimbledon was Tim Henman. A nice boy with a nice wife and well-to-do parents. A good player but not a very good player. And one quite capable of not appearing to try too hard. But how we loved him. Andy Murray, even if he wins Wimbledon (which is highly unlikely. He will probably win the US Open and never quite receive full praise gor it) will never be loved. Because he wants to win.
#7 Increasing jingoism
The 1980s weren’t all good. But at least the absence of British tennis players meant that we could focus on the tennis. In stark contrast, this year ITV News led on a question to Rafael Nadal on Andy Murray’s prospects this year. How rude is that? The best player in the world who has graced Wimbledon with some of its best gamesof recent years. Being asked about whether he thinks the 4th or 5th best player in the world of beating him. Imagine the same journalist filing a piece for London Tonight asking Sir Alex Ferguson what he thought of Chelsea’s prospects next season. No, I can’t see it either.
Tennis is a great sport. And Wimbledon 1990 inspired me to play. But a more modernised tournament, with a focus on the sport rather than the trappings would be a better contribution to our national calendar.
Jan
18
Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, today writes:
“Our critics have wakeful nights dreaming up new and more ingenious ways to constrain the media. As a result, the Open Society is constantly under threat.
“We can count among the principal offenders: an authoritarian Government with an increasing desire for secrecy; judges with an incomprehension of and an animus against the popular press creating a back-door privacy law under the guise of human rights legislation; no-win, no-fee lawyers charging monstrous fees that make it almost impossible for many newspapers to defend actions; Parliamentary Select committees with their seemingly ceaseless inquiries; and axe-grinding politicians and a supporting army of quangocrats and often self-appointed “protectors” of society. individually, any of these can be contained. Together — especially in a period when much of the press is fighting for its commercial life — they demand greater vigilance than ever.”
Is Dacre right that the press faces a multiplicity of threats from society? It’s important to discount the bloated rhetoric (the press is not threatened by an “army of quangocrats” to pick on of the more silly examples). But does anyone really recognise the threats that Dacre sees? Is phone hacking symptomatic of a press with undue restraint? What about the coverage of Stephen Gately’s death? What about the 20 instances in 2010 when a newspaper broke the code of practice? What happened when they did?
The press get things wrong – as do many companies. That’s the risk of a free society. When they do, it occassionally ruins lives (and sometimes costs newspapers £100,000s) but when they get things right, it uncovers scandal, such as the MPs expenses story. It is right that the press seeks to defend its freedoms. But I don’t see the demons that Mr Dacre sees. Either his demons are all incompetent or they don’t really exist. Because in a power battle between government and the press, I’m pretty confident which would win last year, this year and next.
Dec
6
Important parts of the Labour Party are worried about whether Ed Miliband will be left wing enough or right wing enough. It’s the oldest debate in the party so it’s a comfortable one, with the actors playing their usual parts. But the stage has shifted. Labour has no divine right to be heard and this could not be clearer than on social media where Ed Miliband is struggling to be heard by the public.
This isn’t the 1980s where the Labour Party is the political wing of a protest movement which is dominating the public attention. And we’re no longer living in an age where political parties were discussed, voted for and joined as a matter of course.
Actually, Ed Miliband has had worse weeks on social media. People did actually talk about him – for a change. For the first time since the party conference season more people spoke about Ed Miliband than Tony Blair. He even had the highest profile of the shadow cabinet ministers – even if some of this was negative reaction to the disastrous PMQs performance.
But the attention he’s getting is not from anyone who he needs to vote for him, even if Labour is to hold what it’s got at the next election. Seven out of 10 people who talked about Ed were politicos, journalists or news junkies. Miliband is failing to even provoke comment amongst hard working mums on forums, bargain hunters on Moneysavingexpert, TV watchers on DigitalSpy or football fans on leading fans’ forums.
If you measured the sentiment it would be even worse – but there’s little point when the debate is happening between party supporters. It’s like canvassing the canvassers.
The leadership election gave a false impression of Labour’s standing. There was little other political news, the government looked uncertain, the media were obsessed by the fraternal battle and the BBC gave it unjustifiable airtime.
If Ed doesn’t start to define himself, others will. And as the Economist points out he will be positioned with reference to Bob Crow, Vince Cable and Simon Hughes. And that would require a comeback of Istanbul proportions.