Where’s the baby?

Kendrick Perkins is injured, and as the guys on this blog like to argue, he’s a pretty integral part of the Celtics. Truthfully, the dude believes that he’s the big man in Boston’s Big Three. “Any time you put Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and myself, Kendrick Perkins, on a court together, you’re going to win a bunch of games—but let’s not forget there are two other guys on this team, and their names are Rajon Rondo and Kevin Garnett,” Perk said. “In fact, if Kevin continues to play the way he’s been playing, you may just have to start calling us the ‘Big Four.’”

Now, putting aside Perk’s fantastic sense of humor, what I fail to understand is why Doc Rivers would elect to go with Leon Powe in Perk’s absence as opposed to Glen Davis, who is much more physical and gives a lot more bulk in the post than Boston’s game 2 hero. Davis has yet to suit up in the Finals, but if Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom continue to pound the boards like they did in Game 5, I think the Doc should bring out Big Baby. If Chris Mihm can make an appearance, anything is possible, right?

I’m sorry Bill Simmons but…

I’m a huge sports guy fan. For instance, I think that shammgod’s last post was an elaborate reverse-jinx on the Lakers. I think I’ve read every single one of his espn columns and I’ve listened to many of his podcasts. Kind sad, but whatever. My 2 goals for this summer (I’ve given on up on the and1 thing. I have no hope) are to: 1) read Now I can die in Peace (Simmons’ book) and 2) read every single article on firejoemorgan.com. Right now I’m on 08.05. We’ll see how that goes. As you can see, I have no life.

Had some issue with sections from his latest column from espn the magazine about Tennis:

If I guaranteed you that the 2008 Wimbledon men’s final would be the best tennis match of the past 20 years, would you watch it?

Umm. Yes. I think I would. And I think even casual tennis fans would watch the best tennis match in the past 20 years of their life.

Amazingly, many sports fans would say no. Maybe they’d flick over to NBC a few times to “monitor the action.” Maybe they’d swing by for the fifth set. Maybe they’d watch a few games and get bored, then allow themselves to be sucked in by Under Siege or a Tila Tequila marathon. But I don’t have a single friend who’d watch four hours of tennis on a Sunday morning and, I’m guessing, neither do you.

Once a successful mainstream sport, tennis now matters twice a year—during Wimbledon and the U.S. Open—and even then it’s not like America shakes with Racket Fever or anything. The mainstream media still cover tennis, and the ratings for majors are still okay. But when was the last time you watched a big match from start to finish? When was the last time you attended one? When did you last have an argument about something tennis-related that didn’t boil down to “Who do you think is hotter?”

Hmm..you’re making the hotter argument sound like it’s a bad thing. In fact, there’s an entire blog devoted to it: Hot Female Tennis Players. (The url for the site is umm…very direct). You’ve got your Sharapova fans

And you can also make a strong case for Ivanovic:

But back to the post:

Unlike golf, another time-sucking sport that appeals to a specific audience, tennis lacks a Tiger to keep it relevant. When tennis develops its own version of Tiger—first Pete Sampras, then Roger Federer—the guys do almost more damage than good. We see the best tennis stars as the Ping-Pong player at a family gathering who destroys all the uncles and cousins, and eventually kills everyone’s interest in playing Ping-Pong for the day. Golf is a sport that hinges on luck and timing, streaks and slumps, and the quirks of different courses. So it’s almost inconceivable for a golfer to dominate as Tiger has. But for Federer to dominate, it’s completely conceivable. And boring.

It definitely is interesting that Tiger is as popular as he is considering he’s absolutely dominated golf (as he did again today with a very clutch performance). He’s also 1)mad rich 2) has an attractive wife 3) dominates his sport 4)has his own gatorade drink named after him and 5) is smart. Great. But I’m not sure if you can argue the same for Roger Federer. He’s had a solid stretch of being the #1 player in the world and has won many grand slams and ATP tour titles. But Nadal’s the first player capable of consistently beating Federer. Andy Roddick was the world #1 back in 2003, but I think he has 1 or 2 career wins against Federer. Nadal has owned Federer on clay, capped off his by flat out beatdown in this year’s French Open Final. Nadal’s showing signs that he ’s narrowed the gap on grass and hardcourts as well, so I don’t know if Federer’s dominance is a clear fact.

That’s not the only side effect of the speed thing. Not to sound like Grumpy Old Man, but back when I fell for tennis, they played with wooden rackets—and we liked it! When John McEnroe and Björn Borg had their “Battle of 18-16″ at Wimbledon, it wasn’t serve-and-volley, serve-and-volley, serve-and-volley; some of the points lasted for 45 or 50 seconds, and they always seemed to end with McEnroe just missing a winner, then sagging in disbelief. Now, I’m not saying tennis should return to wood rackets. You can’t go backward. The game has evolved to a faster version of itself, and that’s that. But we’ll never see anything like Borg-McEnroe again. The equipment prevents it.

I don’t really buy this argument – you’re saying that faster serves and groundstrokes are bad for the game? Sure this may result in some shorter rallies (although there still are some pretty long rallies – like this 45 shot rally between Federer and Hewitt:

Simmons does give some interesting suggestions to help tennis.

Fix No. 1
Allow cheering, booing, hooting, chanting—anything short of hooliganism—during matches. If you want to keep one “quiet” major, fine, take Wimbledon. For every other tournament, fans should be allowed to act like—hold on, novel concept approaching—fans. If A-Rod can hit a 101 mph fastball at Fenway with fans yelling about his sexual preference, Venus and Roger can handle a second serve amid some background noise.

(Seriously, have you been to a tournament? Tennis and golf are the only sporting events at which you’re expected to drink liquor and not make noise. How does that make sense? I don’t like being anyplace where I might be shushed. It’s just one of my rules in life.)

I agree with this one. If basketball players, baseball players, football players, and many other athletes can play through cheers and taunts, tennis players should too. It would definitely make the matches a lot more engaging and interesting for the fans, although there’s always those crazy fans who try to get the last shout in before the umpire warns the audience for the millionth time.

Fix No. 2
You can’t have four “majors” when absolutely nobody cares about one of them. (I believe not even The Schwab could name the last 10 Australian Open winners.) Why not make the Australian a major mixed-doubles event? Wouldn’t it be fun to see who pairs with whom? It would be like waiting to see who’s taking whom to the prom, right? How would they play together? Would they fall in love, like they do in Dancing With the Stars? You’re interested already, I can tell.

No. Wrong. Un-Fact. Although the mixed-doubles idea (which already exists) is somewhat intriguing, these majors do matter. They’re 4 different styles of courts, and each surface presents advantages for different types of players. Perhaps he’s right and Americans really only care about 2 majors. But that’s kind of a big assumption to make for the rest of the world.

And, I’ve gotta close with this line: ELITE PLAYERS HAVE A SHORTER SHELF LIFE THAN PORN STARS.

I’ll uhh..take your word for that. Come on Sports Guy – I expected better.

HRMPHPHFFFFF

Just wanna say, I really have NO confidence in the Celtics to win this thing.  I’m scared as hell.  What’s a new way they could kick me in the stomach?  Get a 3-1 Series lead and then blow it.  Thanks pessimistic brain.