Hi. This is sports- and media-related, so I figured this is the correct forum.
I’m not at all interested in yet another debate about the Annika Sorenstam thing, first because it’s over and second because there have been enough of those. But I have seen so many mentions on TV, print news, and internet sources that put a positive spin on it (i.e. she did a great thing despite her lack of success in the tournament), and few, if any, negative mentions.
Does anyone have any idea where I can find some articles that dare to criticize Annika and her performance, rather than take the safe/P.C. route and praise her? Thanks.
(Again, her performance itself is not the issue; I’m just looking for some info to balance what I’ve seen.)
Golf Magazine had lots of predictive aricles last month, and some of them tried to be as honest and critical as possible. I’d guess that next month’s mag will have what you are looking for.
I don’t read Golf Digest much, but I’m guessing they did and will do the same.
You can read my commentary in this thread over in Great Debates.
You’re right. I have seen some of those predictive articles you mentioned, but I haven’t seen anything since after the tournament that looked at the actual results. The newspaper (at least my local one, via an AP article) only said laudatory things about the whole thing.
Yeah, the gushing was a bit over the top. Anyway, it all boils down to the fact that she’s really not very good around the greens (chipping, putting). But we all knew that beforehand. Many people were surprised that the other part of her game was actually more than adequate to cnoqure the course.
Thursday’s round could easily have been 69, and Friday’s could have been 71 with just a few good lag putts and one or two half-way decent chips.