One of the top stories on the Tennis Australia website at the moment - one of the things that is REALLY BIG NEWS - is that Mark Philippoussis is going to play the Legends event at the Australian Open. Me... I have some doubts. To begin... since when is the Poo a Legend?
*
Let's face it. No one likes the Poo. Even at the height of his career, no one - not even Australians - really genuinely liked the Poo. I still remember during the Sydney Olympics when there was a big to-do before the Olympics started, because none of the Australian athletes wanted to room with him, because no one liked him. I think Pat Rafter got stuck with the gig in the end, but I'm sure it was made worth his while in some fashion. I mean - he's called the Poo. He may try to plug that Scud card as much as he likes, but no one calls him that. He's the Poo. And that is just not a flattering nickname.
*
His tennis career didn't suck. But at the end of the day, his greatest achievement is going to be being the answer to a trivia question no one can answer: who did Roger Federer beat to win his first ever Grand Slam? Or, alternatively, he'll be known as the guy who did a reality TV show, or the guy that cheated on Delta Goodrem with Paris Hilton. None of this really qualifies him as a legend - particularly when, according to this article, he's eyeing a return to the Davis Cup squad.
*
So this begs the question - what does one need to do to be a legend? Mark Philippoussis is not one. Henri Leconte, who he'll be playing doubles with, is. So what are the criteria?
Posts
