The forgotten four British winners of Wimbledon since 1936
Murray is indeed the first Brit to win Wimbledon in 77 years unless you think women are people
This tweet, the product of Chloe Angyal’s wit, has been retweeted a total of 19,325 times at the time of writing, and is a total certain to rise. What is she referring to? She’s talking about the four British women who have won the Wimbledon singles since 1936, the date of Fred Perry’s Wimbledon triumph, very much touted as the ‘last British win’.
Before I get too deep into this, I want to mention that I didn’t want to write this on the same day Andy Murray won Wimbledon. What I speak about here is more to do with the poor journalism that has been used to ignore past facts for the sake of a more ‘sensationalist’ article. At a moment of such an incredible achievement there should be nothing, even if unintended, that should detract from Murray’s win on Sunday.
But anyway, let’s learn about the forgotten four.
The earliest of these four is Dorothy Round Little, born in Dudley, Worcestershire. She first won Wimbledon in 1934 but the second time she won was in 1937. Yep, that means that ‘since Fred Perry’, Britain only had to wait a year for the next championship to take place. There wasn’t a wait at all.
Little was ranked No.1 in 1934
Next up is Angela Mortimer, born in Plymouth and now married to BBC commentator John Barrett. The winner of the French Open in 1955 and the Australian Open in 1958, Mortimer finally added Wimbledon to her accolades in 1961 which lead her to No. 1 in the World Rankings.
Mortimer was partially deaf when she won Wimbledon at age 29
The British winner of Wimbledon in 1969 was Ann Haydon-Jones. Born in Kings Heath, Birmingham, Haydon-Jones was considered an underdog to her final opponent, the American, Billie Jean King. Haydon-Jones was also the winner of the French Open in both 1961 and 1966
Haydon-Jones was spotted at Wimbledon for Murray’s win
And last, but certainly not least, is Virginia Wade, who won Wimbledon in 1977. That makes it 36 years ago, not 77 of our ‘last British win’. Wade, born in Bournemouth, Dorset, also beat Billie Jean King but in the final of the US Open in 1968 as well as winning the Australian Open in 1972. Her highest world ranking was No 2. in 1975.
Wade is the only female winner of four Grand Slam doubles championships.
All of these women performed incredible feats and it seems like it was swept under the rug. Back then attitudes to women were poorer than they are now and although certainly not acceptable, we can at least attribute this lack of publicity to these backwards opinions. However, with the win of Murray and attitudes supposedly more fair to women, for them now not to mention their achievements proves to be frustrating.
What was it, though? Is it fair to say that journalists have purposely left information out for the sake of a better story. It wouldn’t be considered particularly cynical to believe this, mostly due to the unethical behaviour surrounding journalism at the moment.
But what makes this interesting is the proof to back this distrust. The Daily Mail’s article here, clearly mentions ‘the first British win in 77 years’. Now look at this article here where the Daily Mail celebrates 30 years since Wade’s win. That means it only came out six years ago in 2007. This one example of many (you can see this example in both the Times and the Telegraph as well) proves there was a conscious effort not to mention these winners to allow a more glamourous article.
It also makes it hard to believe that there was anything but manipulation of information in the media. We have been told an outright lie as the last British winner being in 1936 is simply not true – it’s not even a half-truth. It’s such a shame that the media will even blank out incredible achievements for the sake of selling more papers and we have let another reason not to truly believe the information that is fed to us and another reason why citizen journalism is gradually gaining strength over the large corporations.
But what do you think? Do you believe this is journalism trying to hide facts for the sake of a story that sells better, further questioning our news? Or is it more likely the negative opinions of women from the past that have hid information from today, making fact finding more difficult? Whatever your opinion, make sure you get involved with the latest post!
