Just going back over past winners, it's been a very long time since there's been a Lou Marsh winner who has not won a championship, major event, or been recognized as the top athlete within their own sport or league. You'd have to go back to 1979, when Sandra Post won, largely on the achievement of being 2nd on the LPGA money list (she had not won a major since nearly 10 years earlier, but had compiled a highly respected LPGA career). Which I think is roughly equatable with Eugenie Bouchard's achievements this year (minus Post's career achievements including a major and a bunch of lesser tournament victories).
We never honoured Daniel Nestor with the Lou Marsh Award, despite the fact that he's been one of the best doubles tennis players in the world for a decade, has won multiple majors, an Olympic gold, the third most doubles titles in the open era, was once ranked as the #1 overall doubles player, and is still ranked #4 overall at the ripe age of 42. One of only 19 players in history to hold a career golden slam. So the argument that just because it's tennis and we should therefor value Bouchard's achievements more than other sports doesn't hold for me, when we've never gotten that excited about Nestor's achievements.
Bouchard is an exceptional athlete and competitor. She is going to win majors in her career, I have little doubt about that. And when she does, I'll be totally in favour of her winning the Lou Marsh. If she fails to win a major but racks up a load of lesser tournament victories, I'll be in favour of her winning the Lou Marsh. If she rises up to the top of the world rankings, that's worth a Lou Marsh too. But seriously, you've got to win more than the Nurnberger Versicherungscup to be the best athlete in the country. Is she the biggest story in Canadian sports? Sure, I wouldn't disagree with that. But the best athlete? I just don't see it. Not yet.
|