The Worst Tennis Article I Have Ever Read

I know that reading an article on the BBC and complaining that it is poor is a bit like standing behind a donkey and complaining about being kicked, but this really plumbs new depths:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21002898

After years of "Can Andy Murray win a Grand Slam?", what is the headline now he has won one? "Can Andy Murray Win a Second Grand Slam?"! A lot of thought must have gone into that one!

Other highlights include the epithet "History Boy" for Andy and the claim that Federer has been the beneficiary of easy draws in recent years.

Note also how weight is given to Rusedski's punditry by picturing him in a headset and microphone.

Sometimes just really isn't sufficient.

These opinion pieces are supposed to get the easily wound up a chattering.

Welcome to the world of Overend HM. When Murray was making GS Finals he followed with not if but when. You can't help but ask the question which is fine in itself. It is not the worst I have read. Anything that Reed does on Eurosport makes this look like gold

"The Worst Tennis Article I Have Ever Read"

I take it you don't read some of hawkeyes attempts! Lol

I know paranoia is rife in fandom, but Overend really dislikes Federer. The name did not even appear in his review of the big moments of 2012. I mean, come on!

bogbrush wrote:I know paranoia is rife in fandom, but Overend really dislikes Federer. The name did not even appear in his review of the big moments of 2012. I mean, come on!

Couple that with his insistence that this is the 'Golden Era' of men's tennis, and I think we have to declare Overend to be the "Anti-Bogbrush"!

Apparently he gets on really well with Socal too....

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I know paranoia is rife in fandom, but Overend really dislikes Federer. The name did not even appear in his review of the big moments of 2012. I mean, come on!

Couple that with his insistence that this is the 'Golden Era' of men's tennis, and I think we have to declare Overend to be the "Anti-Bogbrush"!

Apparently he gets on really well with Socal too....

He can't be the anti-Bogbush, he doesn't know enough about tennis. I require more worthy opponents.

Pretty much par for the course for Overend. At least he doesn't make some crazy prediction like in a previous slam when he talked up Watson's chances of beating Azarenka before she lost 6-0,6-1.

The problem with the BBC is that both SKY and Eurosport do tennis so much better. OK some of the pundits suffer from severe myopia but they do at least attempt to sometimes look at the bigger picture. Having a tennis correspondent who actually knew the first thing about tennis though might help the BBC's cause but don't hold your breath.

Hiya

Long time follower of this forum. First time posting.

Mainly because I agree with just about everything said on this particular post!!! This rarely, if ever, happens.

When I read Overend's review about 2012, I chuckled at the Federer ommission. I thought it must have been an accident. When I read that 'cushy draw' line my chuckle turned into full blown laughter.
As for the 'history boy' line. Frankly, it's embarrassing. It's such a floored comment. I'm amazed he's allowed to post this kind of stuff. It does Murray no favours.
Anyway guys keep entertaining me. It's all good stuff

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I know paranoia is rife in fandom, but Overend really dislikes Federer. The name did not even appear in his review of the big moments of 2012. I mean, come on!

Couple that with his insistence that this is the 'Golden Era' of men's tennis, and I think we have to declare Overend to be the "Anti-Bogbrush"!

Apparently he gets on really well with Socal too....

He can't be the anti-Bogbush, he doesn't know enough about tennis. I require more worthy opponents.

I agree, BB is a well known writer here, on the contemporary Overend , Reed are all employed by BBC to create some sense of humor for serious tennis followers, thats the maximum positive way I can think of BBC writers.

Fed really had a cushy draw in Wimbledon, with Bennateau in the 2nd, Youznhy in the 4th , Djoko in the Semi's and Murray in the Finals, no wonder Fed won it, lets not talk about other cushy draws like FO where he had to face Del Po in the quarters, Nole in the semi's and Rafa in the finals [ of course Fed could not use the cushy draw to the maximum], do we have to discuss his USO cushy draw now where he had to face and inspired Berdy in the quarters, Murray in the semi's and Djoko in the finals [again he failed to use it to maximu by failing so early]. In all cases his opponent [main rival] had the toughest route like Rafa facing Ferrer in FO semi's, Murray facing Ferrer in Wimby Semis and Djoko facing Ferrer in USO semi's.

Ferrer is the new bench mark of tough draw and any body who doesn't draw him should accept they have a cushy draw, so in all fairness Fed as a Cushy draw in AO 2013 as well, how ever lets over look into the stats that Federer has an h2h of 13 or 14-0 vs the same man.

BBC rules

Overend should start writing penny novels

"there's a corner of a corridor here at Melbourne Park which trumps even the best-placed Parisian pavement cafe."

perhaps I can be employed by the Beeb and waste good taxpayer money by writing such cow dung. He also needs a trip to Paris, paid for by the Beeb, of course, during the RG 2013.

"his tryst with words fails like a street corner affair with a partner of ill repute".

What a travesty this person is! I will accept Hawkeye over Overend on 606v2.

Thank goodness that Overend does not write for 606v2.

Yes I read this article and it really peed me off.

Overend is useless.

I thought about commentating and putting him firmly in his place but didn't bother in the end. The tennis comments section on the BBC website is overun by sycophantic Murray fans who seem to think tennis did not exist circa 2008. The only other people that comment there are the obvious anti-Murray trolls/WUM brigade.



emancipator

HE is subjective writer but not a foolish writer like Overend or for tat sake Reed are.

Beeb found that 606 had some great writers which marveled their editors and rightfully closed it down. Some day a serious tax payer gonna lodge a criminal offence against beeb for encouraging such s--- editors. Thank goodness these days beeb is limited to their shores and doesn't disturb us much.

Johnyjeep wrote:Hiya

Long time follower of this forum. First time posting.

Mainly because I agree with just about everything said on this particular post!!! This rarely, if ever, happens.

When I read Overend's review about 2012, I chuckled at the Federer ommission. I thought it must have been an accident. When I read that 'cushy draw' line my chuckle turned into full blown laughter.
As for the 'history boy' line. Frankly, it's embarrassing. It's such a floored comment. I'm amazed he's allowed to post this kind of stuff. It does Murray no favours.
Anyway guys keep entertaining me. It's all good stuff

Welcome to the forum

The article wasn't that bad.
It may not have been excellent, but I can't understand why it is receiving such high level of criticism.

It Must Be Love wrote:The article wasn't that bad.
It may not have been excellent, but I can't understand why it is receiving such high level of criticism.

The only thing better than that article is your comment

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:The article wasn't that bad.
It may not have been excellent, but I can't understand why it is receiving such high level of criticism.

The only thing better than that article is your comment

I'm not sure I get your point IC.

I'm still not sure why this article has suddenly drew such criticism. The fact is the majority of the tennis articles at the BBC are very similar.
They're grammatically correct, written in good english, have some clichés, and then delve in discussing whether Murray can 'beat the big guns in the latter stages of a Grand Slam.'
Clearly the writers aren't tennis specialists- most of them probably cover other sports as well- hence their knowledge may not stretch below the top few in the men's game.

They're not terrible articles, and you can just breeze through them from time to time without expecting expert analysis.

@IMBL... what iC is suggesting is that if the Beeb is going to employ sports writers, they should be better. In some cases, sub-contracting can result in better quality of articles rather than employing folks like Overend.

My personal evaluation of Overend (without using four-letter words like s--- and f--- and "love") is that he (and others at Beeb) need to pick specific sports that they focus on, rather than being jacks-of-all-trades-and-masters-of-none.

@iC... if I have misrepresented what you intended, I can be chastised (like Overend ).

from personal experience you shouldn't put cliches in.

Nope LF, you just portrayed it way better than I did. , Appreciated.

It Must Be Love wrote:... and then delve in discussing whether Murray can 'beat the big guns in the latter stages of a Grand Slam.'

Does this question need to be asked 17 times? Murray has the ability to do that as has been shown numerous times.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:Hiya

Long time follower of this forum. First time posting.

Mainly because I agree with just about everything said on this particular post!!! This rarely, if ever, happens.

When I read Overend's review about 2012, I chuckled at the Federer ommission. I thought it must have been an accident. When I read that 'cushy draw' line my chuckle turned into full blown laughter.
As for the 'history boy' line. Frankly, it's embarrassing. It's such a floored comment. I'm amazed he's allowed to post this kind of stuff. It does Murray no favours.
Anyway guys keep entertaining me. It's all good stuff

Welcome to the forum

Thank you

I followed the old 606. I had a really boring job way back then!

I have to say I enjoy reading a lot of the stuff on here. Some of the posts are quite insightful. Much better than some journo's - see Overend's latest effort! I just wish they weren't so painfully biased towards Murray. Who is clearly very very good. But that is all (at the moment). They are too keen for me and are trying to qualify his place in the higher echolons of the game long before he has actually earned it.

I used to play a bit (I represented the School if that can be called playing a bit lol) but eventually Cricket and Football took over and I haven't played since so my knowledge is pretty limited. Still, love watching it and love reading about it.

Welcome to the board Johnny Bravo

LF, that's fair I suppose.
I agree on the point that they should be specialists on their sport, that would lead to better analysis I suppose.

It is a bloody awful article.

I wish you hadn't highlighted it though Murdoch. I can already hear Hawkeye banging furiously on her keyboard!

laverfan So pleased to see you! Believe it or not I was seriously worried when you disappeared. In fact I am so pleased to see you despite disagreeing with quite a few of the things that you have said since you came back I will say nothing... yet.

As for the article it was moronic. But not quite as moronic as some of the comments that followed it on the BBC site. Petty name calling and insults at anyone that disagreed with posters own personal opinions or favorites. Inability to debate rationally and bias against anyone who might see things differently. At least here on 606v2 we are a bit more civilized... sometimes.

sportslover wrote:"The Worst Tennis Article I Have Ever Read"

I take it you don't read some of hawkeyes attempts! Lol

hawkeye wrote:laverfan So pleased to see you! Believe it or not I was seriously worried when you disappeared. In fact I am so pleased to see you despite disagreeing with quite a few of the things that you have said since you came back I will say nothing... yet.

I am very humbled by your warm welcome as well as your concern for my well-being after my hiatus, HE. It is much appreciated.

Hope you are following the happenings Down Under.

PS:

invisiblecoolers wrote:HE is subjective writer but not a foolish writer like Overend or for tat sake Reed are.

Hope this is an emollient.