I mean, a lot of players are missing here. No Carlos. No Novak in a Prada faux-fox-fur jockstrap, either.
The story is only Americans.
OH, LOL, of course. SHHEEESH on me!
Revised: No J.J. Wolf. No John Isner in a Prada faux-fox-fur jockstrap, either.
No Fritz or Coco, either. Could have been a scheduling issue. Could have been that they had no interest in an ensemble article - they are solo stars now.
I asked her about it on Twitter. She said her point is that this generation is known for its swagger and isn't living in the shadow of previous American greats - they don't care and neither does she, as a fan. I do think she was trying to do better than a puff piece. She wouldn't put her name on something she didn't think was decent. She just had to find SOME throughline/angle other than "meet the new generation of American tennis players." She had to try to find some DNA to this generation. I don't get it and I don't think the little bio for each player let her accomplish much. All the heavy lifting was in the intro. And it still had to be for a non-tennis audience. This is an attitude piece around a fashion story.
And a good clip/paycheck.
Great. This generation may think they are not living in the shadows of the previous great Americans.
But it is the same as with the Aussies. You are an Aussie? The names Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Goolagong, the unmentionable one and many others are there to remind you of a great tradition. And so it is with Americans.
Which makes the saying "American tennis has never been hotter" factually wrong.
Right, I think angle is a reach and "never been hotter" is wrong unless they mean looks, and even that is dubious."Never been hotter" is just a commercial, low-hanging subhead to get people to read and to connect the photos and the story.
It's irrelevant whether the players are living in any shadows - it just sounds somewhat smart. They should be inspired by the greatness that came before them. That angle is cliche and boring, though.
Revised: No J.J. Wolf. No John Isner in a Prada faux-fox-fur jockstrap, either.
No Fritz or Coco, either. Could have been a scheduling issue. Could have been that they had no interest in an ensemble article - they are solo stars now.
My comments started with ti-amie's mention of Fritz and Coco not being included. Just in case you were having a Nelslus-Dizzy moment here.
Revised: No J.J. Wolf. No John Isner in a Prada faux-fox-fur jockstrap, either.
No Fritz or Coco, either. Could have been a scheduling issue. Could have been that they had no interest in an ensemble article - they are solo stars now.
My comments started with ti-amie's mention of Fritz and Coco not being included. Just in case you were having a Nelslus-Dizzy moment here.
Oh, right. Sorry!
Re: Great Tennis Journalism 2.0
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2023 2:53 pm
by ashkor87
Tignor at it again - predicts Zverev will reach the finals of the USO, beating Alcaraz and Medvedev along the way. I would say that is about a 0.001% chance. On the women's side, he is more reasonable Sabalenka to beat Swiatek in the finals.. that has about a 20% chance of happening, in my view. Although I wonder, if Swiatek can beat Rybakina in the semis (which she never has), why does he think she cannot beat Sabalenka (which she has done several times)?
I wonder how many people here think that is very likely?
Re: Great Tennis Journalism 2.0
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2023 2:55 pm
by ponchi101
I will not go for 0.001% chance of Zverev beating Carlos/Daniil, but it does seem a bit of a stretch.
That is a bold claim, indeed.
Re: Great Tennis Journalism 2.0
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2023 3:43 pm
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 2:53 pm
Tignor at it again - predicts Zverev will reach the finals of the USO, beating Alcaraz and Medvedev along the way. I would say that is about a 0.001% chance. On the women's side, he is more reasonable Sabalenka to beat Swiatek in the finals.. that has about a 20% chance of happening, in my view. Although I wonder, if Swiatek can beat Rybakina in the semis (which she never has), why does he think she cannot beat Sabalenka (which she has done several times)?
I wonder how many people here think that is very likely?
swiatek-sabalenka in the final would be a tossup for me. Maybe 53-47 for Iga based on her big-match performance.
Tennis gambling is a $50 BILLION industry?? And the players, who need money so badly the sport is selling out to Saudi Arabia, can’t take sponsors while tournaments can?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Great Tennis Journalism 2.0
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:38 pm
by ponchi101
The ethical conundrums are huge. After all, what the person in the article says. You can LOSE ONE GAME and make thousands, and still win the match.
How do you control that?
Re: Great Tennis Journalism 2.0
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2023 9:29 pm
by skatingfan
I can't tell if this is parody, or just AI gone awry.
Re: Great Tennis Journalism 2.0
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2023 4:03 am
by ashkor87
Sounds like AI to me..Nadal is 19?! No human media person would be that clueless!
Re: Great Tennis Journalism 2.0
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:42 am
by Owendonovan
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 4:03 am
Sounds like AI to me..Nadal is 19?! No human media person would be that clueless!
Have you seen right wing media pundits in America?
Re: Great Tennis Journalism 2.0
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2023 6:00 pm
by meganfernandez
CNN finally deleted the tweet of the Mourtaglou interview where they said Coco was his newest star. Took a couple days.
