From Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim's current column:
Many sports media members are still discussing Michael Jordan's vindictive speech at his induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame. Am I off to say Jordan's rancor is akin to that of Jimmy Connors? Connors did not attend the opening of Arthur Ashe Stadium in 1997. He initially balked at being inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1998, contending that he had never retired. What do you suppose makes Jimbo and Air Jordan tick? Is it a personality type that does not age well?
-- Dan Martin, Dayton, Ohio• You know the first person I thought of when I heard about Jordan's monologue? Roger Federer. In a million years, could you ever imagine such a tone-deaf, ungracious, self-absorbed speech at his Hall of Fame induction? Could you even begin to conceive of his calling out former junior rivals, recalling decades-old feuds, trashing Rafael Nadal, making only awkward passing reference to his own kids and threatening a comeback at 50? The Jordan apologists have cited this as an example of his "pride," a vivid illustration of his "fierce competitiveness," his "killer instinct." Whatever.
Episodes such as this ought to heighten our respect and admiration for Federer, who's managed to achieve all he's achieved without such an aggressive streak, without the me-against-the-world self-delusion. The knock on Federer is that he's not a killer, that doesn't have that "assassin mentality." To me, it's just made his accomplishments all the more impressive. He became tennis' analogue to Jordan based on his physical ability, superior fitness and accomplishments on the big stage, but without that "killer instinct" and the attendant nastiness.
Recent Comments