broke into the Australian Open final and won the runner-up, and became the second Chinese player to reach the Grand Slam final after Li Na. After achieving this series of achievements, Zheng Qinwen became famous overnight in China, and even gave people a The feeling of becoming a household name! No, on the hot search list of a certain music channel, terms such as "Zheng Qinwen" continue to dominate the list, and discussions about her are endless!
However, as the saying goes: "There are many famous people who are right and wrong"! When Zheng Qinwen successfully broke out of the industry, many media also launched a lot of discussions around her. This is actually a good thing in itself, but the ridiculous remarks made by some media are really confusing and even feel like sensationalism!
hot discussion 1: Zheng Qinwen won more than 8 million yuan in prize money for winning second place; Sun Yingsha, who is ranked number one in the table tennis world, only received more than 300,000 yuan after winning the wtt women's singles and doubles championships. Is this fair?
cannot understand! How could this kind of issue be reported by the media and frequently cited by marketing accounts? Although table tennis has always enjoyed the reputation of the "national sport", it is also true that the commercialization of table tennis itself is limited. The professional development level of table tennis players is also not high. Therefore, how can it compete with the world's largest players? What about an individual sport for comparison? As the saying goes: "Capital determines everything." The prize money of a sport is often related to its own commercial value and degree of commercialization. Isn't such blind comparison funny and ignorant?
However, taking a step back, maybe we can also think about it this way. The original intention of the media who made these remarks may be to lament the excessive income gap between athletes in different sports. But this also seems a bit ignorant. From a sponsor's perspective, the popularity and influence of a sport around the world is the most critical, because it represents the huge profit return that capital investment may bring. Simply discussing fairness and unfairness is meaningless. If the whole world thinks about issues in terms of fairness and unfairness, then we can't do anything. Just like what Rawls said in "A Theory of Justice": "This is the only way. Assuming that the world has not yet begun and people are behind the curtain of ignorance, the world at this time can be called absolutely fair."
Hot Discussion 2: Zheng Qinwen mentioned after the game that only winning the championship is what suits him. However, on the way to the Australian Open this time, she didn't even meet anyone in the top 50 in the world. It's a bit too arrogant to say so!
It is true that Zheng Qinwen's promotion to the Australian Open women's singles finals did have a certain amount of luck. To use a word often said by netizens, it is "the wealth that pours out of the sky". But don’t forget that Zheng Qinwen has defeated top players such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Sakkari, Klejitskova, and Vondrousova since the US Open last year. This just shows that Zheng Qinwen’s current ability and her The rankings are well matched. However, the current Zheng Qinwen, to borrow an old saying, is indeed "not as good as the top, but more than the bottom." Obviously, there is still a certain strength gap between her and the giants of the women's tennis, but she must not be said to be "not good" because of this. "Water", because Zheng Qinwen is not a points war god, she has really reached her current position step by step.
Secondly, many people say that the opponents on the way to the Australian Open this time are too weak, so Zheng Qinwen's "breakthrough" this time is just a fluke and worthless. It is difficult for the author to agree with this view. Looking back at this year's Australian Open, after Rybakina was unexpectedly eliminated, couldn't the entire top half of the draw be regarded as "amazing wealth" for Swiatek? Isn’t it considered a “windfall from heaven” for Ostapenko? So why didn't they catch it? Because this is the current women's tennis world, it is difficult for anyone to maintain a level of stability, and everyone has the opportunity to break out and make a breakthrough. Therefore, to say that Zheng Qinwen was "lucky" is definitely a layman pretending to understand.
As for Zheng Qinwen’s speech after the game, the author thinks this is normal. After all, who hasn’t been frivolous when they were young? Only with this unwillingness can you have a chance to defeat your opponent. If you admit defeat at the beginning, how will you fight Sabalenka if you see her again? Is it possible to withdraw from the competition directly?
Hot Discussion 3: Has tennis now become a purely physical sport? This women's singles final was simply a battle of powerful serves, which made people feel a bit boring and really not interesting to watch.
Many media believe that as far as this final is concerned, the disparity in strength between the two sides is the most fundamental reason for Zheng Qinwen's loss. Almost from the moment the players entered the court, the immediate feeling was that Sabalenka was too strong, while Zheng Qinwen next to her seemed a bit frail. As for the entire game, it was completely impossible to see the technical aspects of tennis. The game was firmly dominated by Sabalenka's violent style of play, which seemed a bit boring.
In fact, the author has previously written "The birth of China's second Li Na!" But what kind of thinking should Zheng Qinwen’s success make us think about? "An article like this, which talks about the idea of building a Chinese tennis cultural market. These remarks exactly reflect the value of this article. It has been the 10th anniversary of Li Na’s Australian Open victory. How can anyone in China still have such a narrow and extreme understanding of tennis? This also exactly reflects the lack of domestic tennis culture. I don’t know if the leaders of the domestic sports bureau have seen these remarks. Maybe we should really think about it. The system must be changed, but the level of domestic tennis education and the popularization of sports knowledge must also be improved.
First of all, tennis itself is a sport that can fully reflect the player's explosive power and flexibility. Strength and beauty, strength and softness are precisely the most attractive aspects of tennis. Secondly, what Sabalenka showed in this game was not only violence, but also a very clear tactical system and rationality of hitting shots that she relied on. Nowadays, Sabalenka has been able to maintain such strong stability in women's tennis precisely because her offense has become more and more reasonable. Now she not only has strong RBI ability, but also knows how to plan and dominate her own game. Rhythm. As the saying goes, "Experts watch the door, laymen watch the excitement." The fundamental reason for Zheng Qinwen's loss in this game was that all technical links were controlled. The opponent's tight defense from the first three boards made it impossible for Zheng Qinwen's bottom line forehand and backhand advantages to be used. Coming out, in the eyes of the uninitiated, means serving against the opponent.
Zheng Qinwen has now achieved half the success. The remaining half may be to reach the Grand Slam final again to prove that he is not a fluke. If he can win the championship, it will definitely be a better result. But I also hope that Zheng Qinwen’s success will no longer be regarded as a “ceiling-like existence” by the mainstream media. The reform of the tennis system will be accelerated to enhance the rationality and fairness of the system so that more athletes can achieve good results in the international arena. This is the real "Pride of China"! We also hope that Zheng Qinwen's success will not only make many people pay attention to the sport of tennis again, but also speed up the popularity of tennis in the country and the construction of the domestic tennis culture market. Otherwise, it took ten years this time, and it may be the next time. For decades. (Source: Tennis Home Author: Lu Xiaotian)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-