Sports Entertainment
Should athletes play their game or entertain? While Pete Sampras played the best possible tennis, Andre Agassi entertained. Andre had a personality and I wanted to watch him play. He winning was not given. He had to fight for it. He went up and down during the game and as a fan of his, I participated in his mini wins and failures. He was a human who was struggling and yet, through his efforts, did pretty well for himself. Also, his off court performances only added to his personality and his likability.
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, on the other hand, are almost like god created. They come to a match. They go through their motions. They win. They played and play the best damn tennis possible. Great. I don't know about others, but I am not looking for tennis lessons or how to hit the perfect cross court inside out fore hand. I am looking to be entertained. And I am going to vote with my remote. The US Open mens finals was not fun to watch. I channel surfed occasionally dropping by to check the score. Roger Federer, with his skills and records, sucks the suspense out of the game. It is almost given he will win. Instead, I really liked the game between Tommmy Haas and James Blake (round of 16 - 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-0, 7-6 (4)) where Blake lost after having 3 match points. That is what I call a true thriller that no Hollywood can make with any amount of retakes and scripting.
The purest might balk at this, but a perfect athlete is not very entertaining. Rather, a good entertaining athlete is one who is not too perfect. Some one who sometimes lets his emotions take over. Some one who knows how involve the crowd, provide the surprise element even in routine affairs. Some one who wins most of the time, but not always. Some one who is not too far above the 2nd best.
Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, on the other hand, are almost like god created. They come to a match. They go through their motions. They win. They played and play the best damn tennis possible. Great. I don't know about others, but I am not looking for tennis lessons or how to hit the perfect cross court inside out fore hand. I am looking to be entertained. And I am going to vote with my remote. The US Open mens finals was not fun to watch. I channel surfed occasionally dropping by to check the score. Roger Federer, with his skills and records, sucks the suspense out of the game. It is almost given he will win. Instead, I really liked the game between Tommmy Haas and James Blake (round of 16 - 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-0, 7-6 (4)) where Blake lost after having 3 match points. That is what I call a true thriller that no Hollywood can make with any amount of retakes and scripting.
The purest might balk at this, but a perfect athlete is not very entertaining. Rather, a good entertaining athlete is one who is not too perfect. Some one who sometimes lets his emotions take over. Some one who knows how involve the crowd, provide the surprise element even in routine affairs. Some one who wins most of the time, but not always. Some one who is not too far above the 2nd best.
posted by d'na | 3:45 PM
1 Comments:
hey deena,
the final was good too with Djokovic having setpoints in each of the first 2 sets though as u said the result was known :-). Did u like the entertainment Novak provided at the end of his QF match with his mimicking abilities. I liked novak till he did that :-) I couldnt stand the way he mocked Nadal in public :-).
-- Prasanna
Post a Comment
<< Home