Blogs and Stories
Why I Love Wimbledon
Julian Finney / Getty Images
As the fortnight comes to an end, The Daily Beast’s Condoleezza Rice reflects on Roger Federer’s hunt for a 15th Grand Slam event, the Venus and Serena sisterly rivalry, and the classic Wimbledon matches of her youth. Plus: View our gallery of Classic Wimbledon
Yesterday, I finally watched Wimbledon. Serena Williams and Elena Dementieva were a spectacular match and a reminder of how exciting tennis can be.
I was late for dinner because I couldn’t tear myself away. It’s the first time in a long time that I’ve felt that way. Frankly, I haven’t cared very much in recent years. Oh, like everyone I watched finals when Serena and Venus played. I took note of the rivalry between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal and their match last year was worth every minute in front of the tube. But it hasn’t been like it used to be.
I’m safe on the chauvinism charge. I certainly hope it isn’t that I can’t tell the difference between the tall Russian blondes with the big forehands and somewhat suspect serves.
In the ‘70s and ‘80s, I waited in great anticipation of the start of “The Championships.” Only the beginning of football season compared with the excitement of the start of the fortnight. I was a devoted watcher of “Breakfast at Wimbledon,” the live broadcast of the men’s (sorry, gentlemen’s) and “ladies’ finals.” When I lived in Denver this meant being ready, croissant and coffee in hand, at 7 a.m. When I moved to Palo Alto, the starting time was 6 a.m. I was there for the first strains of that pompous music that NBC plays and there until the signoff. I liked Bud Collins.
Even though the matches weren’t always great, I loved every minute of it. And sometimes they were really great. Has there ever been a better match than McEnroe-Borg in 1980? There were the great rivalries—Chrissie and Martina; Steffi and Martina and then Steffi and Monica on the women’s side. On the men’s side, Borg with anyone. I’m still sad for Ivan Lendl, who could never master play on grass.
My love of Wimbledon culminated in a trip to the championships in 1998. Pete Sampras defeated Goran Ivanisevic. And Jana Novotna finally won the Wimbledon that she deserved: She of the famous collapse a few years earlier and the tears on the shoulder of the Duchess of York. Neither match was memorable but Wimbledon was. I had never seen a tennis court that made you want to drop your voice to a whisper when you entered the stadium.
Since then I haven’t cared very much. It isn’t that I fail to appreciate Roger Federer as he glides, literally glides, across the court. But though I’ve admired his rivalry with Nadal, it’s not like watching Borg and McEnroe. Since I am an internationalist, I don’t think that the game is less interesting because American men no longer dominate. My favorite players were Borg and Lendl. I’m safe on the chauvinism charge. I certainly hope it isn’t that I can’t tell the difference between the tall Russian blondes with the big forehands and somewhat suspect serves. Maybe it's just because I’ve lost my passion for tennis. Now like most aging baby boomers, I’ve turned to golf.
Click Image to View Gallery of Classic Wimbledon
Truthfully, there are a lot of people like me who don’t really love Wimbledon anymore and don’t watch very much. With Nadal out, Federer is a lock to win his 15th major. But as I write this, I’m thinking that maybe Andy Murray can finally, finally give Britain what it so desperately wants: to win its own championship. Or maybe Andy Roddick will bring back memories of those testy, cocky, American men of times gone by. Or maybe Serena and Venus will finally play the match of their lives—three sets with no tiebreaker in a 10-8 third. Then the thrill would be back. Maybe I’ll watch after all. I might even get up and have breakfast at Wimbledon. On Monday, we’ll see if the magic lasts.
Condoleezza Rice is the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution and professor of political science at Stanford University. From January 2005 to 2009, she served as the 66th secretary of State of the United States. Before that, she served as assistant to the president for national-security affairs from January 2001 to 2005.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
My Weekend on Tiger's Trail
Condoleezza Rice is the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution and professor of political science at Stanford University. From January 2005 to 2009, she served as the 66th secretary of state of the United States. Before that, she served as assistant to the president for national security affairs (national security advisor) from January 2001 to 2005.
Did the other spectators
At Wimbledon assault you with
Questions on waterboarding?
I hear it's hard for you to go anywhere these days
Including Fourth grade classrooms
Where someone doesn't bring it up.
The only place I want to hear from you Ms.Rice
Is testifying in a courtroom or
Before a Congressional committee.
Oh come on Rita, I find it inspiring that a african-american former SOS is watching two superb african-american women in the Wimbledon finals.
How nice for you
Airiq.
Your words are so mean spirited. Ironically, anonymity can reveal more about one's personality than venues that require social morale. Do you yell at your children for spills or demean their personality for white lies. Tell us a little about yourself.
I feel bad for Andy Murray, but now it's all about Roddick!
Oh, I thought AiriqS was writing "former SS". My mistake. But it does fit the bill.
And no, not at all inspiring to read about a person of any colour (whatever colour has to do with this) watching Wimbledon. This is just purely racialist reductionism! Who cares about the African Americanness of it all. To reduce this to colour is just sad.
Condaleeza is a torturer, a collusionist in an illegal war and a pretty disgusting human. African Ameircan or not.
So, who really cares what she thought about the games? I am neither interest in what Cheney or Bush think of the games. These are spiritually dead people who have no place submitting their opinions on anything. They did enough and look where that got us all.
Obviously not much of a tennis fan either
Oh, I love tennis. I just don't like mass murderers. Call it an idiosyncrasy!
Oh, what a miserable bunch - and unfair too, apart from the spirited Airiq. We're supposed to be talking tennis here.
Johnnorth, I am with you on this one.
As despicable a bunch as the BushCheney crew were,
Condoleeza was probably the brightest intellectually of them
all, and probably did not realize the creeps she had affiliated with,
until too late, and after making her commitment to the team.
Having said that, and even if it turns out true that she was integrally
part of the evil that eventually defined the Bush Crew, even if that is true,
she is still an American who has written a non-political piece on a
story of increasing interest for our country with three of the four finalists
being American on the Fourth of July!!!
Yaaaaaaay !!!
Go Serena
Go Venus
GO Andy GO GO GO
Dethrone the king!!!
Fine hockeydoggie-
But remember the evil she enabled.
It eclipses every other aspect when
You consider what happened to
This country.
Ritarita, I know you are not
Mean spirited
As alleged by
User-of-Current
Above
And I also understand
Where you be
Coming from.
I feel the same way
About Michael
Jackson
That you do about
Condoleeza
Rice
She is an amazing woman, attack her politics,attack her party.
Your wish came true Secretary Rice. Roddick-Murray gave us all of the excitement of Serena Williams and Elena Dementieva. Maybe it's time to get some berries and milk and go see Mom and Dad and relive the days of McEnroe, Borg, Navratolova and Everett. I even heard some arguments with the umpire rise above the proper pastiche of Wimbledon protocol. Good to hear from you.
This piece just goes to show how years of carrying water for Dubya and the neocons can turn the brain to silly putty. Who cares what Condoleezza Rice thinks about Wimbledon? Isn't this fluff opinion piece beneath her pay grade? The only reason to pay attention to anything this despicable woman has to say, or write, is if she is under oath at a congressional hearing offering testimony about the war crimes perpetrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. As an internationalist, perhaps she could offer The Daily Beast an essay on her role as one of the intellectual authors of the Bush torture policy, with a special caveat on why it didn't violate the Geneva Conventions. She could also create genuine interest by turning her exceptional gifts toward explaining the Bush League Presidency's fix in the Supreme Court, end runs around the Constitution, violations of American civil liberties, manipulation of the press, mismanagement of the nation's economy, and foreign policy failures. Since foreign policy was her bailiwick for eight, long years, Rice should take advantage of her newfound pulpit to explain why, now that she has retired to academia: China owns our national debt, the Middle East sits in an uneasy truce, North Korea is aiming nuclear missiles at our shores, Iran stands poised to benefit from American blood shed in Iraq, Russia thumbs its nose at the U.S. from subjugated Georgia, Venezuela has recruited Ecuador, Bolivia, and Honduras into the fold. Need I say more? No, but you, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, do need to say more than this drivel about Wimbledon.
You ROCK Shockacon!!
I care, I'm a tennis fan, and I'm not a reductionist politico who only sees "TORTURE," "IRAQ," "WMD's" when I see "CONDOLEEZA."
And for what it's worth, on almost every account of the Bush/Cheney White House, it is clear that Rice had NO role in creating the interrogation policy (that was all Cheney and John Yoo) and LITTLE TO NO role on the decision to go to war w/ Iraq (again, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld). In fact, she had NO role in presenting intelligence to Bush surrounding WMD's, and was so disrespected by Cheney and Rumsfeld that once she actually cried in a meeting (have read 3 accounts of that occasion).
The only policy she significantly authored was the overhaul of due process at Gitmo after the Hamdan decision by SCOTUS in 2005. But even then, much of that was subject to the WH's reading of unitary executive power that places the president's decisions regarding wartime issues above any international laws.
All in all, yes, she certainly colluded on all the Bush/Cheney policies, put up a front to the press, served as the WH defender for years, and continues to do so, despite the fact that much of that time, she was greatly ignored on the key issues you mention. I wish she was as bold as Colin Powell, who has all but broken from the GOP. But let's not get out of hand.
The previous administration had different policies; we didn't like them, so we voted for a change. Obama will continue indefinite detention, and I agree w/ him; only this time, better laws will be in place to give him that power.
I certainly would not want to hear Cheney waxing on about the joys of fly fishing in a blog post on TDB, but then again, he's been upfront about his views, so why not give him the luxury? Either way, it's not really a big deal for Condi to write a fluff piece about one of the biggest sporting events in the world. Actually, it's almost fitting, considering how fluff her position was in the Bush WH.
Oh give me a break. This woman perpetuated, enabled and glorified the worst war criminals in the 21st century. Her bloody fingerprints are smeared all over this grotesque human tragedy, which may make her no more responsible than Adolf Eichmann and certainly no less a preening, evil, self-pitying apologist. She cried "three times" at some meetings???!!! My heartfelt apology to every crocodile alive.
I'm torn on this Condi. On one hand I love your recollection of those great matches from days gone by as they mirror some of my favorites. On the other I'm thinking of aluminum tubes that could only be used for nuclear reactors. Had you not been co-opted by that cabal of treasonous liars during the Bush years I would even have liked to share some time with you reminiscing about those great feats over an iced tea. But all I can bring myself to think of is your involvement and enabling of one of the most evil bunch of cowards I'd ever seen. If Federer doesn't win his 15th Grand Slam will a "mushroom cloud be our dark reward"? Give me some time Condi, I may cut you some slack one day but I'm just not ready to make nice just yet.
Condi, nice to "see" you in the public eye again. I am also a fan of Wimbledon. However that 's not why I'm writing.
I have a simple question. Will you run for president in 2012?
I for one would love to see you as the Republican candidate, you have the experience, the intelligence and the leadership capabilities. So do it.
Oh Condi we hardly knew ye! Cold War hack, abominable pianist, one-note fashonista, congenital liar, official Lap Dancer to the President, war criminal, counterfeit academic, Poltergeist of State and, now, journalistic fluffer. Your insights into the game and history of tennis are breathtakingly trivial, pedestrian and threadbare. How a respected publication like thedailybeast would countenance having a malevolent, fatuous perjurer such as yourself as a contributor is beyond my powers of comprehension.
Rita, disfasia, hockeydog, shockacon, americain, tiger73rd, all the same or in a belief you'll convince us a new history as Stalin and all the socialist "leaders" since.At least you're together in hate, anger, and yes a real con shockaCON. Not much in facts, truth, anything to back up your usual hit and run tactics. But yes we have to put up with you as you have no standards we can hold you to. So you'll last for a time as did Stalin and more. Do you see the new rise of socialism on the horizon or in what countries? Europe doesn't hate us as you well tried to convince us as you see in their new elections. Yes, there are some of you in every crowd. And you'll go rest every evening with the hate and anger you think you can stir in others with your ramblings. No worries, no return comment here as I don't expect anything substantial.
how about an article explaining "Why I Love War Crimes"?
My alltime favorite is Lendl. He had a Slavic fire no one else has had.
My next favorite is Sampras. He was an awesome champion and made it look easy.
The only sportsman that makes my cry is Arthur Ashe. He made the world a better place byhis example and by his words. Perhaps the brainiest of all Wimbledon champions.
LOL look at all these idiots defending a warcriminal, go republicans you can do it!
How are those $500 shoes you bought while New Orleans was drowning? How about that memo, "Obama Determined to Attack By Air"? How about those WMDs that never existed? How about the trillion dollar war and the 100,000s American and Iraqi lives lost.
Go back in your hole, War Criminal. Maybe you can get a cameo on True Blood.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.