Four days ago, I noted within my post regarding Bravery Awards the stupidity that surrounds the lack of action often demanded because of Health & Safety legislation, and the country's preoccupation with moronic approaches to the simplest things. As if by magic, I read in the paper yesterday that there's to be an application of common sense. Apparently no member of the emergency services will now be investigated or prosecuted for breaching laws if in the course of normal duty, he/she acts 'heroically'. Police, Firefighters and Paramedics can now get on and do the right thing. Apparently there is also a will to stop school trips being compromised by teachers having to take account of stupid rules, and a whole range of stupid situations can be avoided. I rather doubt that the blog had anything to do with the change of tack, but it's nice to rant about something and see a result within 72hrs!
...
Friday, 8 July 2011
8.7.11 Labour Letter
The youngest son of TMWSC received a letter yesterday, from the local MP. It was a patronising effort, calculated to secure the support and vote of someone now on the electoral role. Obviously access to the electoral role information means that politicians can play the 'marketing game' through what is nothing other than a mailshot. The content of the letter is fairly ghastly, as you'd probably expect. Here are some extracts, in bold with my notes mixed in:
Congratulations on your recent 18th Birthday! [If you saw the photo of the guy, you'd realise that the congratulations could never ever be meant with any form of sincerity!]
Although you probably haven't thought about it before, this means you are now able to vote for the first time. [The very first line of the first paragraph makes me immediately think the guy has no idea at all about my son's awareness of politics.]
You probably don't need me to remind you that we now have a new Government, a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition whose savage cuts are going to hit young people in this area the hardest. [These will be the savage cuts forced upon the coalition by the crappiest form of financial care imaginable, as demonstrated by the appalling efforts of the Labour government which squandered billions before trying to blame everything on the rest of the world.]
This ConDem coalition is going to affect us all. I am getting in touch with as many young people as I can so that I can gain a full understanding of the issues that you care about. Whether you want to chat about applying to University and our position on tuition fees, or if you're going into an apprenticeship, please don't hesitate to contact me. [Strangely my youngest is rather disinterested in all of this, as he is autistic and couldn't give a shit about voting Labour. I am sure, however, that the facilities available to him will be cut at some point, and it will be debatable whether that's necessary because of the mess labour caused and left the coalition to deal with, or because the coalition is over zealous. More likely, the local authority (Labour controlled) will jump on the bandwagon to cut everything in site and blame the Tories.]
The creepiness of the approach is quite horrible, and misleading. I resent the letter and invitation to join the Labour Party. I hope the letter was paid for by Labour and not as part of the MP's outgoings chargeable to the government. I suggest that if an MP is trying to secure new votes, that he/she first checks whether the recipient is suitable to receive a shit letter.
...
Congratulations on your recent 18th Birthday! [If you saw the photo of the guy, you'd realise that the congratulations could never ever be meant with any form of sincerity!]
Although you probably haven't thought about it before, this means you are now able to vote for the first time. [The very first line of the first paragraph makes me immediately think the guy has no idea at all about my son's awareness of politics.]
You probably don't need me to remind you that we now have a new Government, a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition whose savage cuts are going to hit young people in this area the hardest. [These will be the savage cuts forced upon the coalition by the crappiest form of financial care imaginable, as demonstrated by the appalling efforts of the Labour government which squandered billions before trying to blame everything on the rest of the world.]
This ConDem coalition is going to affect us all. I am getting in touch with as many young people as I can so that I can gain a full understanding of the issues that you care about. Whether you want to chat about applying to University and our position on tuition fees, or if you're going into an apprenticeship, please don't hesitate to contact me. [Strangely my youngest is rather disinterested in all of this, as he is autistic and couldn't give a shit about voting Labour. I am sure, however, that the facilities available to him will be cut at some point, and it will be debatable whether that's necessary because of the mess labour caused and left the coalition to deal with, or because the coalition is over zealous. More likely, the local authority (Labour controlled) will jump on the bandwagon to cut everything in site and blame the Tories.]
The creepiness of the approach is quite horrible, and misleading. I resent the letter and invitation to join the Labour Party. I hope the letter was paid for by Labour and not as part of the MP's outgoings chargeable to the government. I suggest that if an MP is trying to secure new votes, that he/she first checks whether the recipient is suitable to receive a shit letter.
...
8.7.11 Sky's the Limit
I received yesterday a telephone call from James. James works for Sky, and is a tenacious little chap - clearly young and suited to his telesales role. However, as with all nuisance callers, he doesn't take a hint very well.
He asked if he could speak to Mrs MWSC, and I said she was out. "When will she be back?" he asked. I asked who was calling and established James's identity. As soon as he said "I'm calling from Sky" I knew this was a pointless call, and every further second wasted on the line was non-reclaimable. "I'm sorry but she won't want to speak to you, she had a call a while ago from someone at Sky and we don't want Sky, thanks."
I thought that would be good enough, but it seemed I'd overlooked my wife's longstanding relationship with James, and was speaking out of turn. After all, I've only known her for 24 years, and he'd called her "back in June". So, on 7th July, he announces he'd become acquainted with her somewhere between 7 and 37 days beforehand. If we go for the middle ground, that's one day passing after a phone call for every year that I've been with Mrs MWSC. "She would have told you that we don't want Sky, not least because we're moving." So, I'd told James we don't want Sky, that Mrs MWSC won't want to speak to him, and that on top of that, we're moving. In my book, that's a "hint". He didn't take it.
"Yes, she said that you're moving, and I was phoning to check if you had a date yet." I considered for a second the relative priorities. James's priority was to sell me a dish and package. In fact, that was not his priority as such, it was his single mission in life, just as a fish in the sea goes along sucking in plankton without realising what it's actually doing. My priorities in life do not include installation of Sky in a house from which I'm hoping to move, nor discussing anything Sky-related for the foreseeable future. I decided to fend him off with "No, and we're probably renting, so until we know where we're going, or when, and whether the house we go to has Sky already, there's really no point in even thinking or worrying about it."
"Oh, you're going to rent are you?"
When he said this, I was tempted by the appropriate response, which was "No, you stupid cunt - I just lied to you! What's the point of me telling you something so that you then turn it straight back round as a question?" However, I chose not to go down that path but instead decided to remain calm. "Yes, so the last thing on my mind is whether to have Sky or not." This was another hint, or so I thought.
"Well I just wanted to look at what packages might be suitable."
"No thanks." The call ended then, because I put the receiver down. Actually, I mean back into the stand to cut the connection, as opposed to simply 'down'. Mrs MWSC quite often adopts that technique, placing the receiver on the table and letting the caller ramble on while she goes about her business. On one such occasion, the caller was the subject of a wind-up, because the verbose individual was so entrenched in the blurb and a script, that Mrs MWSC and son of TMWSC were massively amused to extend the length of the call with the very occasional 'ah' and 'right' when picking up the handset for a second or two here and there. Twelve minutes, and for eleven and a half of them, the phone was on the table.
Anyway, we have no Sky.
...
He asked if he could speak to Mrs MWSC, and I said she was out. "When will she be back?" he asked. I asked who was calling and established James's identity. As soon as he said "I'm calling from Sky" I knew this was a pointless call, and every further second wasted on the line was non-reclaimable. "I'm sorry but she won't want to speak to you, she had a call a while ago from someone at Sky and we don't want Sky, thanks."
I thought that would be good enough, but it seemed I'd overlooked my wife's longstanding relationship with James, and was speaking out of turn. After all, I've only known her for 24 years, and he'd called her "back in June". So, on 7th July, he announces he'd become acquainted with her somewhere between 7 and 37 days beforehand. If we go for the middle ground, that's one day passing after a phone call for every year that I've been with Mrs MWSC. "She would have told you that we don't want Sky, not least because we're moving." So, I'd told James we don't want Sky, that Mrs MWSC won't want to speak to him, and that on top of that, we're moving. In my book, that's a "hint". He didn't take it.
"Yes, she said that you're moving, and I was phoning to check if you had a date yet." I considered for a second the relative priorities. James's priority was to sell me a dish and package. In fact, that was not his priority as such, it was his single mission in life, just as a fish in the sea goes along sucking in plankton without realising what it's actually doing. My priorities in life do not include installation of Sky in a house from which I'm hoping to move, nor discussing anything Sky-related for the foreseeable future. I decided to fend him off with "No, and we're probably renting, so until we know where we're going, or when, and whether the house we go to has Sky already, there's really no point in even thinking or worrying about it."
"Oh, you're going to rent are you?"
When he said this, I was tempted by the appropriate response, which was "No, you stupid cunt - I just lied to you! What's the point of me telling you something so that you then turn it straight back round as a question?" However, I chose not to go down that path but instead decided to remain calm. "Yes, so the last thing on my mind is whether to have Sky or not." This was another hint, or so I thought.
"Well I just wanted to look at what packages might be suitable."
"No thanks." The call ended then, because I put the receiver down. Actually, I mean back into the stand to cut the connection, as opposed to simply 'down'. Mrs MWSC quite often adopts that technique, placing the receiver on the table and letting the caller ramble on while she goes about her business. On one such occasion, the caller was the subject of a wind-up, because the verbose individual was so entrenched in the blurb and a script, that Mrs MWSC and son of TMWSC were massively amused to extend the length of the call with the very occasional 'ah' and 'right' when picking up the handset for a second or two here and there. Twelve minutes, and for eleven and a half of them, the phone was on the table.
Anyway, we have no Sky.
...
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
6.7.11 Car Stickers
Today I followed a Ford Focus. The main focus of my attention was the signage in the back windscreen; two stickers announcing to me who was 'on board'. Obviously the use of 'on board' for a Ford Focus is misuse of the term, in my opinion. Still, let's allow that one to pass, and concentrate on the main point - the discrepancy arising from two claims regarding those apparently on board.
There is of course on file (by way of my post dated 12th February 2011) a comprehensive analysis of the 'Child On Board' phenomenon, so I will try to avoid repetition of the inappropriateness highlighted in that long post. Instead, my attention will be directed more to the pairing of signs in the Focus.
Mummy's Little Princess On Board
Mum To Be On Board
The first thing that struck me was that the Mum-To-Be sign suggested the driver (who was at least female) was pregnant. If so, then in theory, the sign could be fitting. However, the presence of the Little Princess sign rather messed things up because that would mean the driver was already a mother, and that she had no right to claim some sort of sympathetic approach from me (to excuse shit driving, for example) and perhaps encourage me not to ram her car up the arse in case the shock caused a miscarriage. The fact that one sign claimed the on-board Princess was "Mummy's" meant that the other sign should have read Mum On Board.
I considered whether the Princess was the offspring of someone other than the driver, but dismissed this as unlikely. There are not too many small females who provide their own signage to put up in other people's cars, to be chauffeured around and fool those in the car behind into thinking they are possibly the daughters of random female drivers. After deciding my logic was totally sound, I concluded that it was the mother/driver who was at fault.
A mile further on, I realised that there was actually no passenger, let alone a supposed 'Princess'. It made me wonder: if the driver could lie about having a Princess on board, then she could probably lie about being pregnant as well! "Where will it all end?", I asked myself. The answer was actually 'at the top of the hill', as it turned out, because the driver turned left and I was left to drive on without dubious statements/claims dangling in my field of view.
In summary, the signs were contradictory, and whether a car has 'on-board' occupants who qualify as Royalty or some-cunt-expecting-a-baby-to-pass-through-in-the-near-future is completely irrelevant. Even hazardous goods don't get words, only an orange square now. A further sign in the Focus would have been appropriate, I thought, as I pulled up at the lights; Liar On Board. But as I pulled up a minute later at the end of my journey, I realised that this sign could itself be confusing for anyone other than the Focus driver, who was clearly lying. As the 'Liar On Board' claim could be a lie, then any of us could display just this sign and having it dangling or stuck to the glass would in effect be meaningless, because it's in effect a double negative.
...
There is of course on file (by way of my post dated 12th February 2011) a comprehensive analysis of the 'Child On Board' phenomenon, so I will try to avoid repetition of the inappropriateness highlighted in that long post. Instead, my attention will be directed more to the pairing of signs in the Focus.
Mummy's Little Princess On Board
Mum To Be On Board
The first thing that struck me was that the Mum-To-Be sign suggested the driver (who was at least female) was pregnant. If so, then in theory, the sign could be fitting. However, the presence of the Little Princess sign rather messed things up because that would mean the driver was already a mother, and that she had no right to claim some sort of sympathetic approach from me (to excuse shit driving, for example) and perhaps encourage me not to ram her car up the arse in case the shock caused a miscarriage. The fact that one sign claimed the on-board Princess was "Mummy's" meant that the other sign should have read Mum On Board.
I considered whether the Princess was the offspring of someone other than the driver, but dismissed this as unlikely. There are not too many small females who provide their own signage to put up in other people's cars, to be chauffeured around and fool those in the car behind into thinking they are possibly the daughters of random female drivers. After deciding my logic was totally sound, I concluded that it was the mother/driver who was at fault.
A mile further on, I realised that there was actually no passenger, let alone a supposed 'Princess'. It made me wonder: if the driver could lie about having a Princess on board, then she could probably lie about being pregnant as well! "Where will it all end?", I asked myself. The answer was actually 'at the top of the hill', as it turned out, because the driver turned left and I was left to drive on without dubious statements/claims dangling in my field of view.
In summary, the signs were contradictory, and whether a car has 'on-board' occupants who qualify as Royalty or some-cunt-expecting-a-baby-to-pass-through-in-the-near-future is completely irrelevant. Even hazardous goods don't get words, only an orange square now. A further sign in the Focus would have been appropriate, I thought, as I pulled up at the lights; Liar On Board. But as I pulled up a minute later at the end of my journey, I realised that this sign could itself be confusing for anyone other than the Focus driver, who was clearly lying. As the 'Liar On Board' claim could be a lie, then any of us could display just this sign and having it dangling or stuck to the glass would in effect be meaningless, because it's in effect a double negative.
...
Monday, 4 July 2011
4.7.11 Bravery Awards
Today's newspaper contains the stories of some of the nominees for the Police Bravery Awards. The few examples given vary in their nature, and it raises a couple of points. If someone applies to work in a role that is by its very nature likely to involve danger, it does seem quite strange to highlight people who do their job for an award. I do not begrudge recognition to people who put themselves at risk, but it starts to become a strange world when we are supposed to compare acts of bravery and decide on who deserves a gong.
Stopping a car because the driver was using a mobile phone was clearly a routine thing for a policeman to be doing. The priority for policing these days is to make sure that most resources are targeted at car drivers, whether to catch them speeding, parking in the wrong place, or doing anything that can lead to a ticket and fine. Anyway, using a mobile phone is obviously wrong. The fact that the driver decided to ram the police car putting both vehicles out of action was no doubt shocking, but the policeman gave chase and caught the passenger, using spray CS gas to restrain him. Now, not to take anything away from the efforts of the copper, I am struggling to see how that deserves nomination for bravery (?)
Still, there are other examples of the police doing things less associated with their actual job specification, and it is actually nice to see that in any event, efforts are made by those employed to do the right thing. They are of course best placed in most cases to act, because they have been trained to a high level to do the right thing. In fact, I would say that police officers have a duty to take action in a lot of challenging circumstances; it is part of the job to take some risks and be brave. In a similar way, courage and bravery are needed to be in the armed services. Making comparisons between various acts is weird, though, to establish whose efforts were best deserving of a gong.
The other point, though, is how from time to time we read about other really stupid incidents where no action is taken by those charged with protecting the public, or providing an important service. Are there other awards, not for bravery but for Non Action? These could include the times when someone is struggling in water and for supposed health and safety reasons, people stand and watch the individual drown. There are some really stupid approaches taken these days, which demonstrate how those in jobs that are supposed to have some significance and purpose manage to actually avoid the whole reason for their existence by not acting when it comes to the crunch. That's like being a soldier and then refusing to join in when there's some fighting to be done.
I think that bravery awards are a step too far. Yes, recognise bravery, but don't make it into a competition, or an annual event. That actually belittles the genuine efforts of some. I would also like to see those who have chosen a career/job in public service, often in uniform, promise to do something if the situation demands it, not just quote rule number 32a and loiter without doing anything constructive.
...
Stopping a car because the driver was using a mobile phone was clearly a routine thing for a policeman to be doing. The priority for policing these days is to make sure that most resources are targeted at car drivers, whether to catch them speeding, parking in the wrong place, or doing anything that can lead to a ticket and fine. Anyway, using a mobile phone is obviously wrong. The fact that the driver decided to ram the police car putting both vehicles out of action was no doubt shocking, but the policeman gave chase and caught the passenger, using spray CS gas to restrain him. Now, not to take anything away from the efforts of the copper, I am struggling to see how that deserves nomination for bravery (?)
Still, there are other examples of the police doing things less associated with their actual job specification, and it is actually nice to see that in any event, efforts are made by those employed to do the right thing. They are of course best placed in most cases to act, because they have been trained to a high level to do the right thing. In fact, I would say that police officers have a duty to take action in a lot of challenging circumstances; it is part of the job to take some risks and be brave. In a similar way, courage and bravery are needed to be in the armed services. Making comparisons between various acts is weird, though, to establish whose efforts were best deserving of a gong.
The other point, though, is how from time to time we read about other really stupid incidents where no action is taken by those charged with protecting the public, or providing an important service. Are there other awards, not for bravery but for Non Action? These could include the times when someone is struggling in water and for supposed health and safety reasons, people stand and watch the individual drown. There are some really stupid approaches taken these days, which demonstrate how those in jobs that are supposed to have some significance and purpose manage to actually avoid the whole reason for their existence by not acting when it comes to the crunch. That's like being a soldier and then refusing to join in when there's some fighting to be done.
I think that bravery awards are a step too far. Yes, recognise bravery, but don't make it into a competition, or an annual event. That actually belittles the genuine efforts of some. I would also like to see those who have chosen a career/job in public service, often in uniform, promise to do something if the situation demands it, not just quote rule number 32a and loiter without doing anything constructive.
...
Sunday, 3 July 2011
3.7.11 Men's Final
It was a good match, and for a change, Nadal was slightly less efficient than normal. The pundits came out with all the usual blurb, and over 4 sets we experienced some good tennis. The microphone fiasco at the very end proved beyond doubt that the BBC licence fee really needs to go up pretty quickly so there's money in the kitty to sort it out in time for next year.
Some interesting stats have emerged, although not the ones you might expect. Instead of the aces, double faults, first serves in etc, I have noted some other more interesting points relating to the Men's Final Towel Wiping Championship at Wimbledon. These included the following:
Dkokovic - Nadal
Banana Eating: 4 - 0
Water Drinking (bottles): 6 - 8
Arse Picking: 1 - 142
Ball Bouncing: 3,122 - 523
Towel Wipes (face): 177 - 263
Towel Wipes (biceps): 9 - 132
Most bounces of the ball, before serving: Djokovic - 32
Most balls inspected before a serve: Djokovic - 5
...
Some interesting stats have emerged, although not the ones you might expect. Instead of the aces, double faults, first serves in etc, I have noted some other more interesting points relating to the Men's Final Towel Wiping Championship at Wimbledon. These included the following:
Dkokovic - Nadal
Banana Eating: 4 - 0
Water Drinking (bottles): 6 - 8
Arse Picking: 1 - 142
Ball Bouncing: 3,122 - 523
Towel Wipes (face): 177 - 263
Towel Wipes (biceps): 9 - 132
Most bounces of the ball, before serving: Djokovic - 32
Most balls inspected before a serve: Djokovic - 5
...
Saturday, 2 July 2011
2.7.11 Balls, Grunts, Bouncing, Towels & Underwear
Bouncing
Novak Djokovic is adept at playing tennis, and whatever the result of the Wimbledon final, he will be No.1 in the world ranking on Monday. He will also maintain his top position for ball bouncing. Today, in his match with Tsonga, his ball bouncing ahead of serving was in good shape. He was typically taking 15 bounces in his preparations, although this little ritual sometimes included more bounces. I certainly clocked a 22-bounce lead up to a serve. This is taking things too far. In a five set match, he will serve for up to 30 games, and 200 points. For a split of two thirds first-serve-success and one third needing a second serve, and at 15 bounces per serve average, then the spectators will be watching someone bounce a ball 4000 times. That's not entertainment!
Underwear
The game of tennis should feature excitement as players use racquets to hit a ball over the net. The game is not really enhanced by having to watch players picking underpants away from a sweaty arse. Rafael Nadal disagrees, of course, and insists on being the one player who has it as an essential part of his game. No passage of play can be undertaken without the end result being a requirement to adjust his underwear. He clearly needs some help; perhaps Gok should be called in.
Balls
Unfortunately it is the case that in many walks of life, people push things a bit further than necessary. In the world of shaving, we have moved from a single blade to multiple blades - I think we are up to five now, with a battery and glide strip. In tennis, ball boys and girls were once upon a time charged with retrieving balls and dispensing them to speed things up. A server will require one or two balls to complete the manoeuvre (excluding the occasional net cord affecting things) and so players used to take two balls (although women often took/take one at a time). These days, things have moved on. For a while, the convention has been to get the ball boys to supply three, piss about deciding which of the three identical balls is of no use, and then to drop it and tap it away so that it has to be retrieved by the ball boy. This abuse of the facility is annoying, and is simply a pointless ritual that shows the stupid little mind games that players adopt. Today, the stakes were raised, when I saw players on more than one occasion raising their expectations. Four were apparently needed a few times today, to give that extra bit of choice before going for the two that were the most attractive. Where will it end?
Towels
Years ago, the change of ends in tennis was a chance for the players to grab a brief rest, have a drink and wipe away a bit of sweat with a towel. Then things moved on when players started to take a towel with them on their long journeys to each end of the tennis court. They would leave it at the back of the court, whether on a vacant chair or on the ground. It meant that in particularly long games, they could have a quick wipe; it was understandably a useful step for times when a game went to the 'deuce' stage many times. However, today the game is a joke, as players are taking the piss and abusing the ball boys. It seems it is now necessary for some players to have a wipe after each and every point. What a pathetic ritual. A quick 'point of the finger' or 'nod of the head' alerts the ball boy to come running with the towel so the player can wipe nothing from an eyebrow, forehead, mouth or bicep. Today, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal were both displaying very well the silly practice that is quite simply annoying and unnecessary for 90% of the time.
Grunts
The grunting at Wimbledon is intolerable. What's amazing is that the men are expected to run around for hours in matches of up to five sets, yet their grunting is at a lower level than the women, who shriek, grunt and whine in a nauseating manner. Sharapova will, in tomorrow's final, make a racket while swinging her racquet. Something needs to be done about this pathetic practice. Tennis has become an arena for players to display weird behaviours. OCD is rife.
...
Novak Djokovic is adept at playing tennis, and whatever the result of the Wimbledon final, he will be No.1 in the world ranking on Monday. He will also maintain his top position for ball bouncing. Today, in his match with Tsonga, his ball bouncing ahead of serving was in good shape. He was typically taking 15 bounces in his preparations, although this little ritual sometimes included more bounces. I certainly clocked a 22-bounce lead up to a serve. This is taking things too far. In a five set match, he will serve for up to 30 games, and 200 points. For a split of two thirds first-serve-success and one third needing a second serve, and at 15 bounces per serve average, then the spectators will be watching someone bounce a ball 4000 times. That's not entertainment!
Underwear
The game of tennis should feature excitement as players use racquets to hit a ball over the net. The game is not really enhanced by having to watch players picking underpants away from a sweaty arse. Rafael Nadal disagrees, of course, and insists on being the one player who has it as an essential part of his game. No passage of play can be undertaken without the end result being a requirement to adjust his underwear. He clearly needs some help; perhaps Gok should be called in.
Balls
Unfortunately it is the case that in many walks of life, people push things a bit further than necessary. In the world of shaving, we have moved from a single blade to multiple blades - I think we are up to five now, with a battery and glide strip. In tennis, ball boys and girls were once upon a time charged with retrieving balls and dispensing them to speed things up. A server will require one or two balls to complete the manoeuvre (excluding the occasional net cord affecting things) and so players used to take two balls (although women often took/take one at a time). These days, things have moved on. For a while, the convention has been to get the ball boys to supply three, piss about deciding which of the three identical balls is of no use, and then to drop it and tap it away so that it has to be retrieved by the ball boy. This abuse of the facility is annoying, and is simply a pointless ritual that shows the stupid little mind games that players adopt. Today, the stakes were raised, when I saw players on more than one occasion raising their expectations. Four were apparently needed a few times today, to give that extra bit of choice before going for the two that were the most attractive. Where will it end?
Towels
Years ago, the change of ends in tennis was a chance for the players to grab a brief rest, have a drink and wipe away a bit of sweat with a towel. Then things moved on when players started to take a towel with them on their long journeys to each end of the tennis court. They would leave it at the back of the court, whether on a vacant chair or on the ground. It meant that in particularly long games, they could have a quick wipe; it was understandably a useful step for times when a game went to the 'deuce' stage many times. However, today the game is a joke, as players are taking the piss and abusing the ball boys. It seems it is now necessary for some players to have a wipe after each and every point. What a pathetic ritual. A quick 'point of the finger' or 'nod of the head' alerts the ball boy to come running with the towel so the player can wipe nothing from an eyebrow, forehead, mouth or bicep. Today, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal were both displaying very well the silly practice that is quite simply annoying and unnecessary for 90% of the time.
Grunts
The grunting at Wimbledon is intolerable. What's amazing is that the men are expected to run around for hours in matches of up to five sets, yet their grunting is at a lower level than the women, who shriek, grunt and whine in a nauseating manner. Sharapova will, in tomorrow's final, make a racket while swinging her racquet. Something needs to be done about this pathetic practice. Tennis has become an arena for players to display weird behaviours. OCD is rife.
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)