| A headache
is ample justification for not taking the kids to Chucky Cheese or Toys-R-Us
on a Saturday. And a headache may exempt you from a trip to the mall for
the back-to-school super-sale (then again, it may not). But when you're
playing in Arthur Ashe Stadium on the first day of the U.S. Open, you
take an aspirin, suck it up and serve.
Unless, of course,
it's a splitting headache. That is, you trip over a ball boy chasing down
an overhead lob and split your head open on the hard court.
I felt a dull pain
gnaw at my brain stem when I read that U.S. Open security officials initially
denied the New York City Police Department access inside the tennis center
stadiums while matches were being played.
They were told that
the fully equipped uniforms worn by New York's Finest may cause the spectators
to feel uncomfortable.
There's a high profile,
international sporting event taking place in the shadow of Ground Zero
and an elite police force trained in anti-terrorist tactics is told its
services would not be required.
Who's the genius that
came up with the idea that the crowd would feel more at ease with Barney,
sporting a nifty new blazer, two-way radio and stun gun, watching their
backs while they enjoy the action on the court?
Show me the ticket
holder that's comfortable with the fact that some hourly-wage employee
experienced in the proper technique for dispersing an overzealous crowd
congregating at the cappuccino stand will be able to handle any terrorist
situation that may arise.
A stun gun is fine
for handling the guy in the food court going ballistic because he has
to cough up $20.25 for a lobster roll and a bottle of Evian. But it doesn't
make sense to try to prevent police snipers from taking their position
in the stadium rafters.
At a time when every
single plane that passes over Arthur Ashe Stadium garners as much attention
as a 130 m.p.h. Andy Roddick service ace, you just don't turn away anti-terror
cops. God, my head is pounding!
(By the way, I didn't
pull the price for a lobster roll and water out of a hat – but anyone
who orders lobster at a sporting event in the first place should have
to pony up – get a hot dog ya boob).
Pardon me while I
pop a couple of Advil… that's better.
I get a cranial stitch
every time I hear another woman player whine about having to face Venus
and/or Serena Williams. "They're too good". "I guess I'll
have to settle for getting to the semi-finals". "Nobody can
beat them".
They are so far superior
to the rest of the players on tour that it's causing "morale problems".
Boo hoo.
The sisters have combined
to win seven of the last twelve major championships. And they've been
dubbed the "dominant duo". By my calculation, the numbers indicate
that five of the last twelve majors have been won by someone other than
a Williams.
And they're ready
to throw in the towel, pack up their endorsement contracts and go home?
What they should do is consider themselves lucky. Lucky that they're twenty-something
and not forty-something.
In the five year span
between 1982 and 1986, another "dominant duo" captured eighteen
out of nineteen major championships.
You want to talk about
"morale problems", ask any tennis player in that era what it
was like to see Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova across the net at a
major during that sixty-month stretch.
And I wonder if, when
the Evert/Navratilova streak reached fifteen straight, Hana Mandlikova
pouted over the prospect of becoming the next "victim" at the
1985 U.S. Open finals.
Did they have to drag
her onto the court kicking and screaming? After all, she had no chance
of unseating either one of the reigning queens of women's tennis. Why
bother, right?
7-6, 1-6, 7-6. "That's
why they play the game".
So what
are these young ladies crying about? Honestly, it makes my temples twinge
– like I just sucked down a super-sized slurpee. I may have to cut
this column short (either that or take a freakin' aspirin).
*********************
|