Great Saturday Of Sports
I had every intention of leaving the house after that debacle of a Yankees-Sox game today. But between the fact that I was busy trying to update my Yankee blog and watch the US Open match and two football games....something that should have taken a half hour ended up taking two friggin hours.
So I said fuck it. I'm gonna stay in and watch the rest of the games/matches on my couch. And save some brain-cells from an alcohol-induced death at Blondie's while I'm at it.
I made the right decision. What a day!!! A great day of College Football, one great match at the Open, one decent one and someone's coming out party.
Let me start off with today's College Football. Charlie Weis is playing Chess and everyone's else is still playing checkers. That what it seems like as Notre Dame goes into Ann-Arbor and beats number three Michigan 17-10. Now I'm not one of these people who are ready to annoint the Irish as one of the best teams in the country....but I will say this...With Weis at the helm, they'll never lose a game they're supposed to win and they'll play the big boys tough. They should have a good year. Probably finish 10-2 or 9-3.
I never believed that Michigan was a number 3. But that comes from the Big Ten rep as a top-tier conference. Yes, it's still a good conference, but it's not the best. The SEC and Big 12 are much better football conferences and have been for several years now. And if they're not careful, the Big 10 could be supplanted by the ACC, if they haven't already. There's not one team in the Big Ten, that's as good as USC or Texas. Ohio State had a chance to make a claim but Vince Young had something to say about that...
Speaking of Vince Young, what a spectacular win over the Buckeyes in the Big House tonight! But I wonder why people kept saying that it would be something of an upset if Texas manage to pull it off. Why? Because Big Ten homers Lee Corso (Indiana) and Kirk Herbstreit(Ohio State) said so? Please. Texas has the most talent in the nation this side of the Rockies and USC. They have a legitimate Heisman candidate in Vince Young has their QB. Heck, the only thing that's kept them from winning a couple of national titles is Oklahoma and the fact Mack Brown is a horrible in-game coach. A magnificent recruiter (I saw that when he was at USC), a decent defensive mind. But a very mediocre X's and O's head coach. He'll rarely lose to an inferior coach. But if he's facing an equal opponent with a superior coach like Stoops, he's in trouble. That's why even if he beats Oklahoma and wins the Big 12, no way he's beating USC. Pete Carroll is his equal as a recuiter, is a better defensive coach and has a better coaching staff.
In college, recruiting is king. If you can recruit, you'll always have a chance. And if you're halfway decent, you'll always be in the hunt. Take Bobby Bowden. He is not a great in-game coach by any means. But he lives one of the most talent rich states in the union and is a great recruiter. As a result, he can coach until he's 100 with Alzheimers and still win 10 games a year. Joe Paterno can coach rings around Bowden. For years, he was the only thing to keep East Coast football relevant. But he can't get the horses like he used to because he's competing with Big 10, ACC and Big East schools for the same players. Barry Switzer and John Cooper couldn't coach a lick. But because they were great recruiters who had no moral compass, they were successful. Jim Tressel of Ohio State can coach, but it remains to be seen what sort of recruiter he is.
That's why I think if Charlie Weis is half the recruiter Carroll or Brown, he'll be successful. If he can get the sort of kids Lou Holtz was able to get past the gestapo admissions office, he'll be in the national title picture sooner rather than later. Why? Because he can coach. He's coached at the highest possible level you can coach in the game. With one of the great teams of the last 30 years. He has automatic street cred with kids that you can't put a price on. The NFL is all about schemes and planning. Free Agency and Expansion has made the talent level pretty level. It's all about who can do their best Bobby Fischer imitation. Who can be Rommel and who can be Patton. Weis learned at the feet of two of the best. He won't face anything in the way of coaching remotely close. It's like Michael Jordan posting up Spud Webb. All day every day.
Once Weis is able to get the talent to match his coaching ability, he'll be on his way.
Great to see Kim Clijsters finally get the Gorilla off her back, winning her first Grand Slam title in her fifth final. I've always liked her game, but she always fallen a bit short. I thought she would relegated to Jana Novotna/Gabriella Sabatini status. Good players, but lacking the killer instinct to be great. But the way she dispatched Mary Pierce 6-3, 6-1 in 65 minutes showed me that she's ready play with the big girls now. She beat Maria Sharapova, Venus Williams and Mary Pierce to get there. Not too shabby.
Nice to see Mary Pierce back in the thick of things. I've loved her game since she smoked Steffi Graf at the French Open years ago. The only time I ever saw Graf get blown off the court. But she's never been able to stay healthy because she took fitness seriously. That and she liked to party as young girls in the 20's generally do. Now she's fit and hopefully she'll be able to get a title or two to add to her Australian and French crowns. Two grand slam finals this year. Pretty good start.
The women's field is a deep as it's ever been. At every Grand Slam tournament, you have about 10 to 12 women who could win it all. Maybe more. I can't think of anytime where the women's field has been that deep. Five to eight maybe. But never 10. Fun time to be a tennis fan.
I have to admit, I've never been a Andre Agassi fan. I've always resented the fact that he got better press than other players who were easily his equal or better. All this junk about overcoming this or that, ignores the fact that he never took fitness seriously until late in his career. His eight Grand Slams should be 10 or more if he took his craft as seriously as Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl or Jimmy Connors did for their entire careers.
And I've always been more partial to Stefan Edberg and John McEnroe and hybrids like Sampras or Boris Becker. Andre's ground game, although magnificent, never did much for me.
That being said, I will be rooting for him tomorrow against Roger Federer tomorrow. I don't think he has a chance in hell against the Almighty in Tennis Shorts. But I think his game/style will give Roger problems. And if God has an off-day, who knows what might happen? Should be fun.
Even if he does win, Agassi in my mind, doesn't belong in that first level of Tennis Giants in the Open. The Sampras, the Lavers, the Emersons. He probably belongs in that second or third tier of great players. Just a step below the Connors, Borgs, Lendls and McEnroes. On par with the Wilanders, Beckers, Edbergs and Rosewalls.
Why not higher, you ask? Because as good as he was, he was never the guy. Never the man. There was always someone better out there. Whether it be Sampras or Courier or Federer, he's never been number one for any extended amount of time. He might bne number one for a couple of months, the Sampras would kick the shit out of him at the US Open or Wimbledon. Yes, he's the only man since Laver to have won every Grand Slam title in his career. But you can't tell me that he was a better player than Lendl, McEnroe, Borg or Connors because of that. Lendl was number one three years in a row and made it to eight straight US Opens(1982-89), winning three straight(85-87). Borg won five straight Wimbledons and Six straight French Opens. McEnroe was the number one player in three straight years and the number one doubles player in the world. He won 7 singles majors (3 Wimbledon, 4 US) and 10 doubles majors. He won over 70 singles titles and over 150 total. All while winning several Davis Cups. Connors was number one in the world for over five years, winning five US Opens and two Wimbledons and one Australian title. He won over 100 titles in his career.
As good as Agassi is, His career doesn't match that. Yes he's won every major at least once. But he's won Wimbledon once. In 1994, a year before Sampras made it his own personal plaything. He won Australian four times. The least prestigious of the slams. Yes, he's won the US twice. Beating Todd Martin and Michael Stich. Granted you can only beat the guys who are on the schedule, but whenever he's had to face his equal, more often or not he loses. He was Sampras' bitch at the US Open three times. Hell, the last time, he was playing much better tennis that year than Pete, beat the guy who pimp-slapped Sampras the year before in the final (Lleyton Hewitt) and still couldn't beat Pete.
The great ones eventually get the best of their rivals in the big game. Lendl eventually beat up on Connors and McEnroe. McEnroe eventually got past Borg and Connors. Heck, Borg was so frustrated, that he retired at 26 because he thought he couldn't beat McEnroe anymore. Connors and Borg beat up on each other for years.
Andre never got past Sampras except in the Australian Open in 1995. And that was because Pete was an emotional wreck because his coach was dying of brain cancer. Every other time, Pete had his number in the big match.
So as good he is, Andre isn't the immortal that people make him out to be. If he beats Federer, that might move him up a little. But not enough to call him an immortal.
So I said fuck it. I'm gonna stay in and watch the rest of the games/matches on my couch. And save some brain-cells from an alcohol-induced death at Blondie's while I'm at it.
I made the right decision. What a day!!! A great day of College Football, one great match at the Open, one decent one and someone's coming out party.
Let me start off with today's College Football. Charlie Weis is playing Chess and everyone's else is still playing checkers. That what it seems like as Notre Dame goes into Ann-Arbor and beats number three Michigan 17-10. Now I'm not one of these people who are ready to annoint the Irish as one of the best teams in the country....but I will say this...With Weis at the helm, they'll never lose a game they're supposed to win and they'll play the big boys tough. They should have a good year. Probably finish 10-2 or 9-3.
I never believed that Michigan was a number 3. But that comes from the Big Ten rep as a top-tier conference. Yes, it's still a good conference, but it's not the best. The SEC and Big 12 are much better football conferences and have been for several years now. And if they're not careful, the Big 10 could be supplanted by the ACC, if they haven't already. There's not one team in the Big Ten, that's as good as USC or Texas. Ohio State had a chance to make a claim but Vince Young had something to say about that...
Speaking of Vince Young, what a spectacular win over the Buckeyes in the Big House tonight! But I wonder why people kept saying that it would be something of an upset if Texas manage to pull it off. Why? Because Big Ten homers Lee Corso (Indiana) and Kirk Herbstreit(Ohio State) said so? Please. Texas has the most talent in the nation this side of the Rockies and USC. They have a legitimate Heisman candidate in Vince Young has their QB. Heck, the only thing that's kept them from winning a couple of national titles is Oklahoma and the fact Mack Brown is a horrible in-game coach. A magnificent recruiter (I saw that when he was at USC), a decent defensive mind. But a very mediocre X's and O's head coach. He'll rarely lose to an inferior coach. But if he's facing an equal opponent with a superior coach like Stoops, he's in trouble. That's why even if he beats Oklahoma and wins the Big 12, no way he's beating USC. Pete Carroll is his equal as a recuiter, is a better defensive coach and has a better coaching staff.
In college, recruiting is king. If you can recruit, you'll always have a chance. And if you're halfway decent, you'll always be in the hunt. Take Bobby Bowden. He is not a great in-game coach by any means. But he lives one of the most talent rich states in the union and is a great recruiter. As a result, he can coach until he's 100 with Alzheimers and still win 10 games a year. Joe Paterno can coach rings around Bowden. For years, he was the only thing to keep East Coast football relevant. But he can't get the horses like he used to because he's competing with Big 10, ACC and Big East schools for the same players. Barry Switzer and John Cooper couldn't coach a lick. But because they were great recruiters who had no moral compass, they were successful. Jim Tressel of Ohio State can coach, but it remains to be seen what sort of recruiter he is.
That's why I think if Charlie Weis is half the recruiter Carroll or Brown, he'll be successful. If he can get the sort of kids Lou Holtz was able to get past the gestapo admissions office, he'll be in the national title picture sooner rather than later. Why? Because he can coach. He's coached at the highest possible level you can coach in the game. With one of the great teams of the last 30 years. He has automatic street cred with kids that you can't put a price on. The NFL is all about schemes and planning. Free Agency and Expansion has made the talent level pretty level. It's all about who can do their best Bobby Fischer imitation. Who can be Rommel and who can be Patton. Weis learned at the feet of two of the best. He won't face anything in the way of coaching remotely close. It's like Michael Jordan posting up Spud Webb. All day every day.
Once Weis is able to get the talent to match his coaching ability, he'll be on his way.
Great to see Kim Clijsters finally get the Gorilla off her back, winning her first Grand Slam title in her fifth final. I've always liked her game, but she always fallen a bit short. I thought she would relegated to Jana Novotna/Gabriella Sabatini status. Good players, but lacking the killer instinct to be great. But the way she dispatched Mary Pierce 6-3, 6-1 in 65 minutes showed me that she's ready play with the big girls now. She beat Maria Sharapova, Venus Williams and Mary Pierce to get there. Not too shabby.
Nice to see Mary Pierce back in the thick of things. I've loved her game since she smoked Steffi Graf at the French Open years ago. The only time I ever saw Graf get blown off the court. But she's never been able to stay healthy because she took fitness seriously. That and she liked to party as young girls in the 20's generally do. Now she's fit and hopefully she'll be able to get a title or two to add to her Australian and French crowns. Two grand slam finals this year. Pretty good start.
The women's field is a deep as it's ever been. At every Grand Slam tournament, you have about 10 to 12 women who could win it all. Maybe more. I can't think of anytime where the women's field has been that deep. Five to eight maybe. But never 10. Fun time to be a tennis fan.
I have to admit, I've never been a Andre Agassi fan. I've always resented the fact that he got better press than other players who were easily his equal or better. All this junk about overcoming this or that, ignores the fact that he never took fitness seriously until late in his career. His eight Grand Slams should be 10 or more if he took his craft as seriously as Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl or Jimmy Connors did for their entire careers.
And I've always been more partial to Stefan Edberg and John McEnroe and hybrids like Sampras or Boris Becker. Andre's ground game, although magnificent, never did much for me.
That being said, I will be rooting for him tomorrow against Roger Federer tomorrow. I don't think he has a chance in hell against the Almighty in Tennis Shorts. But I think his game/style will give Roger problems. And if God has an off-day, who knows what might happen? Should be fun.
Even if he does win, Agassi in my mind, doesn't belong in that first level of Tennis Giants in the Open. The Sampras, the Lavers, the Emersons. He probably belongs in that second or third tier of great players. Just a step below the Connors, Borgs, Lendls and McEnroes. On par with the Wilanders, Beckers, Edbergs and Rosewalls.
Why not higher, you ask? Because as good as he was, he was never the guy. Never the man. There was always someone better out there. Whether it be Sampras or Courier or Federer, he's never been number one for any extended amount of time. He might bne number one for a couple of months, the Sampras would kick the shit out of him at the US Open or Wimbledon. Yes, he's the only man since Laver to have won every Grand Slam title in his career. But you can't tell me that he was a better player than Lendl, McEnroe, Borg or Connors because of that. Lendl was number one three years in a row and made it to eight straight US Opens(1982-89), winning three straight(85-87). Borg won five straight Wimbledons and Six straight French Opens. McEnroe was the number one player in three straight years and the number one doubles player in the world. He won 7 singles majors (3 Wimbledon, 4 US) and 10 doubles majors. He won over 70 singles titles and over 150 total. All while winning several Davis Cups. Connors was number one in the world for over five years, winning five US Opens and two Wimbledons and one Australian title. He won over 100 titles in his career.
As good as Agassi is, His career doesn't match that. Yes he's won every major at least once. But he's won Wimbledon once. In 1994, a year before Sampras made it his own personal plaything. He won Australian four times. The least prestigious of the slams. Yes, he's won the US twice. Beating Todd Martin and Michael Stich. Granted you can only beat the guys who are on the schedule, but whenever he's had to face his equal, more often or not he loses. He was Sampras' bitch at the US Open three times. Hell, the last time, he was playing much better tennis that year than Pete, beat the guy who pimp-slapped Sampras the year before in the final (Lleyton Hewitt) and still couldn't beat Pete.
The great ones eventually get the best of their rivals in the big game. Lendl eventually beat up on Connors and McEnroe. McEnroe eventually got past Borg and Connors. Heck, Borg was so frustrated, that he retired at 26 because he thought he couldn't beat McEnroe anymore. Connors and Borg beat up on each other for years.
Andre never got past Sampras except in the Australian Open in 1995. And that was because Pete was an emotional wreck because his coach was dying of brain cancer. Every other time, Pete had his number in the big match.
So as good he is, Andre isn't the immortal that people make him out to be. If he beats Federer, that might move him up a little. But not enough to call him an immortal.
posted by Darth Marc at 1:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home