Ballers, Gamers and Scoundrels

Hours after Venus defeated Serena for the ingles plates, tennis’s Forst Sisters beating Lisa Raymond and Samantha Stosur 6-2, 6-2 for the doubles hardware.

It’s good to be a Williams. Finally.

And not just because the family will deposit $2.710 million in winnings into their bank accounts following a very productive fortnight at Wimbledon.

It’s been 14 years since Venus turned pro, setting the table for little sister to arrive shortly thereafter. In the decade since, the sport of tennis - from its governing bodies to the establishment elite to sponsors and fans in the cheap sets - has been, let’s face it, ambivalent about them.

Sometimes they were cheered. Often they were booed.

They were sometimes hailed as “faces” of the sport. More often they were kept at racket’s length by a sport that didn’t know what to do with the braided girls from Compton and their father, Richard.

They were criticized for being less focused than we wanted them to be. Criticized for wanting to have well-rounded lives filled with goals beyond tennis. How dare they?!

And on Madison Avenue, they were never Maria Shaparova.

Their matches against each other were diced and dissected like none other, and the family battles never lived up to expectations. To hopes.

Until Saturday.

Venus’ 7-5, 6-4 victory over Serena in the Wimbledon women’s singles final was not particularly brilliant, which would have been difficult given the windy conditions. But it was dramatic. It was intriguing. It was filled with twists and turns.

And in the end “the best Williams won,” as Venus had said going into the final. More important, neither Williams lost. Fittingly, it moved their head-to-head record to 8-8.

Venus simply proved to be the better Williams on the surface where she has now won five championships. And sister Serena had nothing to be ashamed of.

And it seemed that on the sport’s greatest stage, with two of the game’s icons - Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova - cheering from the royal box, the Williamses were finally loved.

They saved the fortnight, just as they’ve largely carried women’s tennis for the last decade. And for once it seemed as if those who watched didn’t act as if they were let down or disappointed that a) the Williamses were facing each other in the final, or b) how it played out.

The Williamses have been through much as we watched them grow. Injuries crippled them. Family strife (their parents’ divorce) pained them. Tragedy (the murder of their sister) broke their hearts.

And each time they played each other it seemed as if it was the last place either of them wanted to be - because, like loving siblings, neither wanted to cause the other to feel the pain of defeat

They’re now 28 and 26, respectively, still Big Sister and Little Sister, but full-blown women back at the peak of their games. And mature enough to compete with each other without reservation.

So now maybe tennis is finally ready to enjoy and appreciate them, finally ready to give the Williams sisters their long overdue respect.

She would already be one of the top female tennis players ever – if she existed.

She’d have 24 Grand Slam titles. With 14 singles Slams and 42 overall tournament wins, she certainly would have been the most dominant player since Steffi Graf – if she existed.

Oh, she does exist, kind of.

Her name is Serenus Williams. And ideally for tennis fans her wondrous gifts would not have been split between the sisters Serena and Venus.

But they were, and rather than celebrating one of the greatest figures the sport has ever seen, we’ve been conflicted about tennis’ sister-sister act. Who’s better? Who’s stronger? Who’s faster? Who’s mentally tougher? Who’s hotter?

Even now, as both women boast middling rankings – due more to inactivity than poor performances – some tennis fans are wringing their hands at the prospect that the sisters just might meet in the Wimbledon finals next weekend. Most of the top-seeded women have already had their return tickets scanned. Nouveau No. 1 Ana Ivanovic is gone. So is No. 2 Maria Sharapova (aka So Now What Do I Do With My Wimbledon Wardrobe?)

No. 3 is Jelena Jankovic. ‘Nuff said.

The Williamses are seeded sixth and seventh (Does it really matter which one’s which), and with each scoring fourth-round straight-set wins Monday, the prospect of the first all-Williams Grand Slam final in five years is looking like a reality.

Something seems to be different, though. Rather than bemoan another tortured affair in which neither sister wanted to beat the other, it seems everyone is almost anxious to see the renewal of perhaps the most intriguing “rivalry” in sports. Even the sisters are buzzing about it.

“The chances were wonderful from the beginning, from round one,” Venus told reporters on Monday. “That’s how we see it. The more we progress, obviously the closer it gets.”

Maybe it’s because they’re older. Because their lives are filled beyond tennis. But perhaps this time the two women will play each other without worrying about breaking the other’s heart.

Instead, maybe we’ll see the kind of spirited kick-your-sibling’s-butt battle we’ve yearned from them since they first squared off across the net for money.

If so, we’ll almost certainly see what Serenus might have been: powerful, fast, undaunted, resilient, The Incredible Hulkette at the net – all of the gifts that have been attributed to one sister or the other (or even both) at some time during their career.

I will say this: Venus and Serena may have been they most important women in tennis history since Billie Jean King. Whatever we thought about them, we watched. Before Tiger raised the bar for attracting television viewers who might not otherwise watch, the Williams sisters were must-see television.

Last summer, USA Today reported that CBS’ four highest-rated U.S. Open women’s finals during the last decade all involved the sisters from Compton, Calif. In 2001, their first prime-time final was the highest rated since 1985.

They lifted women’s tennis from its oh-Chrissie-is-gone malaise, gave fans someone to root for (or against) and gave young players like Sharapova, Martina Hingis and Justine Henin someone to shoot for. Two someones, in fact.

Love ‘em or not, the Williams sisters will always be the face(s) of women’s tennis for this generation.

Had they been one player, they would almost certainly have been No. 5 on my all-time list behind Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Billie Jean King and Chris Norman (nee Evert) and just a tad ahead of the wondrous Margaret Court and her record 24 singles Grand Slam titles - just to stir debate.

Apart? I’m sure either becomes part of the “all time” discussion – and that’s too bad.

Serenus. She coulda been a contendah.

Correct me, please, if I’m wrong. But I thought the aim was to send the best team possible to the Olympics.

That’s why I have no problem with last Saturday’s decision by USA Gymnastics to name Paul Hamm, the 2004 all-around Olympic champion, to the six-man squad even though he missed the “trials” due to an injured wrist that doctors say will be healed in time for Beijing.

It’s also why I don’t get USA Track & Field, which insists on choosing its entire team based on a one-time event — the win-or-stay-home trials, which begin Friday in Eugene, Ore. That’s nuts.

Athletes could have won every major title since the last Olympics but wake up with colds on race day and miss finishing in the top three. If they were gymnasts, the “committee” would name them to the team anyway. Because they compete in track and field, they stay home.

You might have run the fastest times in the world all year, but if you slip in the trials, tough luck. Here’s the remote.

That’s nuts.

You don’t have to be a T&F aficionado to know that sprinters Tyson Gay, Allyson Felix and Jeremy Wariner (the 2004 400-meter Olympic champ) should be in Beijing.  There are athletes in other events who no doubt should be in Beijing, too.

Let everyone else sweat it out this weekend to fulfill their lives’ dreams. Good for them. But when it comes time to board to plane for China, let’s make sure our best have boarding passes — not that they’ve been bumped due to one bad day.

The fact that various sports among the U.S. delegation have such disparately different qualifying criteria seems inane. Aren’t we ultimately one team?

Of course, as absurd as it is, the qualifying format isn’t likely to change. USATF president Bill Roe told USA Today that he hasn’t “felt a huge groundswell to change” the qualifying criteria.

Little wonder. USATF makes a killing off the trials. This year’s event is sold out, and it’s being held at Hayward Field, which recently underwent an $8 million renovation.

Seems it’s hard to do what is best to win gold medals when you’re simply going for the gold.

“I was freestyling. That’s all.”

“[I was making] a sarcastic point”

“It was all done in fun. Nothing serious whatsoever.”

“What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason.”

“Please tell everybody don’t make something out of nothing.”

Where does Imus end and Shaq begin? Or vice-versa?

More important, why the disparate responses to the knucklehead remarks of the week uttered by radio talk show hosts Don Imus and rapper wannabe Shaquille O’Neal?

During last Monday’s radio broadcast, Imus had this exchange with sports announcer Warner Wolf regarding Adam (Don’t Call Me Pacman) Jones’ numerous arrests and exchanges with our men in blue.

Imus: “What color is he?”

Wolf: “African American”

Imus: “There you go. Now we know.”

It sure sounded as if Imus was insinuating that the reason Jones was a bad boy was because of his color. He later tried to say he was saying that Jones was essentially “profiled,” that his blackness made him a target.

The remark invoked a bit of a hue and cry that Imus, previously fired for calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hoes,” should once again be drawn and quartered.

A day earlier, renaissance man Shaquille O’Neal was TMV’d while rapping in a New York nightclub. Much of the coverage focused on his mocking Kobe Bryant, his former teammate, for losing so convincingly in the recent NBA Finals. (”Last week, Kobe couldn’t do without me.”) But at its lowest, Shaq “freestyled” this phrase: “Kobe…, tell me how my ass tastes.”

In contrast to the reaction to Imus, many journalists parroted O’Neal’s no-big-deal-it’s-what-MCs-do response.

Why the disparity in the reactions? To me, they should have been flip-flopped.

Imus is a was-been who at least came up with a plausible spin (one that would have been more plausible had he been, say, Keith Olberman).

O’Neal is a global brand who is one of the most respected, dominating and loved athletes of his generation. He is not an MC! His “rap” was dumb and vulgar. Near the end of his playing career, he should not want to go out asking a rival how his ass tastes – whatever the heck that means.

Where was the outrage for a “performance” (quote marks intended) that none of us would want our kids to hear?

I’m not saying he should be fined or suspended. But I’m shocked and disappointed that he was largely allowed to skate. I can certainly see why two sheriffs asked O’Neal to return badges he had been given for his work with the organizations.

At least someone stood up and said, “Sorry, Shaq, love ya, but this time you crossed the line.”

C’mon, Shaq, as Mark Jackson would say: “You’re better than that!”

Of course, the gut-busting irony is that these incidents each occurred just after one of the funniest men alive, George Carlin, died.

These two weak attempts at humor — and our reaction to them — no doubt have already made the comedic icon turn over in his grave.

NASCAR should thank Mauricia Grant. Just write her a check – not the $225 million she wants, but something that’ll hurt a bit – and thank the woman for forcing them to come to grips with a fact they’ve been ignoring too long: Their much-talked about diversity “program” is a failure.

It’s a bust. It’s a 15-car pileup. It’s all-talk, no-drive and zippo results.

And that’s too bad.

It’s too bad because I really wanted it to work. I wanted to believe Brian France when he said years ago that the organization wanted to eradicate its good-old-white-boy network and join the 21st century. I wanted to believe him when he said NASCAR wanted the best and brightest of all flavors to work for NASCAR - and not only because the sport wanted to attract more colorful fans.

I wanted to believe him because I actually like the sport, and having been to a few races as a reporter I’ve never met anyone who wasn’t open, friendly and cooperative. From the top execs to the guys in the garage, everyone was cool.

That’s why I wanted NASCAR’s efforts to recruit people of color throughout all aspects of the sport to succeed.

But it’s failed miserably, and perhaps Grant’s ugly allegations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment – 57 altogether – will force France to stop talking and start doing.

It seems the program, such as it is, was ill-conceived from the start, and ill-executed every step of the way.

First off, the efforts should never have been primarily about finding black drivers. Sure, that’s the easy fix – Go get us a Tiger Woods who can make tight left turns at 225 mph, and we’ll be all right. In fact, somebody ask Tiger himself if he can drive – but it’s a false fix. Sure there’ve been barriers that have prevented a few capable African American drivers from cracking NASCAR’s top circuit and sustaining a run, and those barriers should be addressed and eliminated. But waiting for (or even trying to create) your “Tiger” is the lazy way out.

NASCAR’s efforts should have been focused on every aspect of the sport, from the executive suites to the garages – especially the garages.

Driver Jeff Burton has been quoted as saying that he wanted a garage “that is a cross section of America.” And he added: “I can honestly tell you that I’ve never spoken to anybody that doesn’t believe the same thing.”

So what have they done about it? Why are there still too few people to notice on pit crews and among the myriad officials who regulate the sport, promote the sport and communicate about the sport?

Because the diversity program doesn’t work, that’s why. It’s never been the kind of all-encompassing program that is needed to insure that people are recruited, interviewed and hired at all levels, especially in the garage.

NASCAR is dealing with some troubling issue. Even before fuel prices started to rival the cost of a compact car, television ratings were sagging, fans were staying home and the buzz that once saw NASCAR hailed as “the fastest growing sport in America” had become a snore.

Now this.

I’m not saying Grant’s allegations are true. I have no idea. But already two NASCAR officials have been suspended in connection with France’s investigation into her lawsuit.

But whether all 57 allegations or true or not, Brian, just write the check. Make this go away and get about the business of fixing the sport. Start your engine and address the core reasons why your diversity efforts have been an abysmal failure.

Do it now, and stop wishing – and waiting – on a Tiger.

He wasn’t quite the Big Ticket I’d been waiting to see since the postseason began. But at least he wasn’t the Big Stub.
That’s what I labeled Kevin Garnett after his abysmal performance in Game 5 of the NBA Finals and his solid yet unspectacular play throughout the playoffs. Where was his 40-point gem for the video vault? Where was his 28-rebound monster game that symbolized his unprecedented desire to win his first championship?
Where was he when Paul Pierce hit the floor and was carried off in Game 1?
Oh, he was there, but never THERE.
On Tuesday, KG finally arrived. He scored 26 points, hitting 10 of 18 shots, most of them jack-tough J’s in Pau Gasol’s grill. He also had 14 rebounds, twice as many as any other Celt. Tonight, he was there.
His performance helped the Boston Celtics demolish Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers, 131-92, to win their 17th NBA championship, their first in 22 years.
The key word being “helped.”
We learned a lot during these playoffs. We learned a lot about a lot of players. But maybe the most intriguing thing I learned is that Garnett is not the superstar who carries his team to the promised land, as perhaps so many have long made him out to be.
He’s not the Big Ticket. But as one NBA expert told me, he’s The Big Teammate. Maybe the best teammate ever.
His majestic arrival from Minnesota almost a year ago certainly changed the culture in Boston. But he was not the reason the Celtics won this title. And after watching him throughout the postseason, and particularly in these Finals, he ranks third among the Big Three.
There would be no celebrating in Boston if Paul Pierce, the career-long Celtic and 2008 NBA Finals MVP, been traded. And there would certainly have been no cheers had Ray Allen been imported from Seattle.
Allen was the series’ true MVP, punctuated by 26 points in Game 6, including seven devastating three-pointers to tie an NBA Finals mark.
Pierce, though, may have won the series in Game 1, returning to the floor just minutes after the injury and never again showing even an inkling that it had occurred. He had 17 points and 10 assists in the clincher.
Through it all, KG filled in the blanks. He was the inspiration. He was the glue. He was whatever the Celtics needed him to be.
It didn’t always stand out, and it was hardly ever what we expected. But it was enough.
“Tonight,” KG said in the midst of the celebration, “I am certified!”
And validated.

When it comes to Tiger, when will we stop saying: Unbelievable?

That’s what I asked myself - and many of my friends - after Tiger jammed a 12-foot birdie putt on 18 to force at 18-hole playoff at the 2008 U.S. Open at Torrey Pines.

What a time we’ve lived in, one of my boys said to me today. Both of us - in our early to mid 50s, respectively, - been able to witness Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Tony Dungy and even Barak Obama.

not to mention the next tier: Kobe Bryant. OJ Simpson (the football player), Dr. J, Emmitt Smith, Barry Bonds (pre steroids), Martina Navratilova, Joe Montana, David Beckham, Bird/Magic, John McEnroe,Tom Brady,Roger Clemens (pre-lying), Wayne Gretzky, Billie Jean King, Annika Sorenstam …

What a time…

Did I leave anyone out?

For all the talk about Kobe being the best player on the planet and Pau Gasol being the steal of the millennium, the Lakers’ most critical player is a 20-year-old with a bum knee.

That “duh” moment occurred with just a few ticks left in Thursday’s stunning Game 4 of the NBA Finals when Celtic guard Ray Allen - not exactly MJ when it comes to one-on-one moves - made a move to his right and slipped past Lakers guard Sasha Vujacic then reached the basket for an pre-game warmup-like layup before Gasol or Derek Fisher could intervene.

As the soon-to-be-33-year-old Allen sashayed to the rim for his 18th and 19th points of the game, it popped into my head: What would have happened to him had Andrew Bynum been there?

For those with short memories, it was the kid, a former No. 10 pick in the draft who pretty much spent a year being tutored by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who got the Lakers off to their hot start this season.

Bynum bolted out of the paddock like a wild colt, averaging 13 points, 10 rebounds, and 2.1 blocks in the first 13 games of the season. He was a bonafide, old-school presence around the basket, which is why the Lakers suddenly - just weeks after Bryant wanted to ship all of his teammates out of town - were the top dogs in the West.

But Bynum went down with a knee injury on Jan. 13 and has not returned. It’s the reason the Lakers, even with Bryant, are on the brink of elimination in the NBA Finals.

You might catch a glimpse of him behind the bench, still with the ball boy’s face.

For all their size and offensive skills, the Lakers’ big men - Lamar Oden and Gasol - couldn’t wrestle a handbag from an old lady. It’s who they are. It’s who they’ve always been.

On the defensive end of the court, they have as much presence as Casper the Friendly Ghost (and about the same demeanor).

Bryant knows. Earlier in the playoffs, during the Utah series, he admitted the Lakers have missed Bynum.

“He’s a legitimate, 7-1, long-wing-span, natural shot blocker, so add Andrew, it takes us to another level defensively,” Bryant said.

The Lakers fulfilled as much promise as they could without him, and they may still make history by becoming the first team ever to arise from a 1-3 deficit in the Finals to win an NBA title.

But in his heart, perhaps he now knows that this Laker team, no matter what happens in the rest of the series, is playing for ‘09. Next year, Bryant said at the time, “we’ll be one helluva team.”

Now they’re just a team missing one of its most vital - not its best - player. Against these Celtics it may be too much to overcome.