indiana wrote:

---

It is good in itself for celebrities to get on the ground involved in charities. But surely what is generally more important to the charities is that it is publicised, that recognition of their name and what they do is picked up by the celebrity's followers.

Us common citizens will make little difference in marketing our charity efforts. The sports star can make quite a difference though, so if they go about it very quietly they are not helping the charity as much as they probably could.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 24th of November 2024 06:20:36 PM

---

 I recall when George Michael died, it came out a bit later how he had done loads of charity work or donations under the radar. 

 

But tbh, Emma, footballers, golfers, whoever - they get paid enough, far more than us normals ever would. Good for her and the charity ultimately - if it helps people then that's all that matters 

Blue_Belle wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

It is good in itself for celebrities to get on the ground involved in charities. But surely what is generally more important to the charities is that it is publicised, that recognition of their name and what they do is picked up by the celebrity's followers.

Us common citizens will make little difference in marketing our charity efforts. The sports star can make quite a difference though, so if they go about it very quietly they are not helping the charity as much as they probably could.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 24th of November 2024 06:20:36 PM

---

 I recall when George Michael died, it came out a bit later how he had done loads of charity work or donations under the radar. 

 

But tbh, Emma, footballers, golfers, whoever - they get paid enough, far more than us normals ever would. Good for her and the charity ultimately - if it helps people then that's all that matters 

---

And a big difference there is that there was a long period in George Michael's life when his reputation would have been poison for a charity to be associated with.

Whereas Emma, despite all the fuss from the tennis commentariat about her coaching setup/injuries etc (and the aggro she gets from the Daily Fail and similar rags just for existing as a successful young woman) has a lovely, positive reputation that attracts good press. This is exactly why charities actively court celebrities and famous patrons, because they get (positive) column inches/social media buzz that the charity can't get on it's own.

So good on George Michael for doing a lot privately (and with no career benefit to him) but I doubt any of the charities he was working with would have wanted it any other way at the time.

 

 

Good news.

Hoping for more progress in 2025 for Emma. Winning another title is a must. And back into the top 32 should be a short term goal.

I read one of tennis abstracts data analysis articles today on Clara Tauson

www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2025/01/07/can-clara-tauson-withstand-the-winners/

One of the things they looked at was the number of forehand winners that the top players had go past them. The average was 14.5 percent and the table below showed the top players above that level ie that get passed very often by forehand winners. The article focused on Tauson and suggested she is flat footed - as you can see, Emma is right up there having this as a weakness. Is it the same, ie she is flat footed or are there other reasons and is it a problem for her? The article calls her out as being different without explaining why (as the article isnt about her)

Player vs Wnr/Pt
Angelique Kerber 22.5%
Clara Tauson 21.0%
Marie Bouzkova 20.9%
Emma Raducanu 19.8%
Elise Mertens 19.3%
Caroline Wozniacki 18.8%
Daria Kasatkina 18.6%
Victoria Azarenka 18.2%
Yulia Putintseva 18.2%
Elina Avanesyan 18.0%

Not sure if it's discussed on the AO thread, but I read that Emma had apologised to Andy for pulling out of partnering him at Wimby last year and 'causing any trouble', and he was OK with it.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/c5y7xz47rrno

But it sounded that what she wrote had no empathy around it being his home and last tournament there, and Judy wrote at the time 'astonishing' Good on Andy for saying he understood, but it must have been gutting.

I like Emma but do find that she makes really questionable decisions (including coaching and fitness trainers). Not sure if it's her or her reputedly pushy parents?

I think Andy would have been single-minded enough (about what was best for his tennis career) to do the same thing as Emma in the same situation and Judy would have approved and backed him. 

-- Edited by KK on Friday 17th of January 2025 09:20:40 AM

indiana wrote:

---

Yes, discussed a fair bit on the Aus Open singles thread.

Questionable decision making by Emma but also by Andy. There is a view that both Andy and Emma were at 'fault' and that it was a bit of a peculiar / potentially problematic offer and acceptance.

That there were better, less headline, players ( who would have been made up ) that Andy could have gone for?

---

 Thanks, I've found it now - I had missed it as the thread is moving pretty quickly

It's been interesting to see the posts. I think that I was a little confused at here initial comment, like they weren't being civil to one another?? I do see now that it was a bad choice and agreement all around, but can see why Andy wanted a big name for his swansong.

I do still think some of her decisions are questionable though, and hope that having at least a trainer now will help her.