No Way Nole Should Not Have Played Today - Eh?
It is so easy for fans in any sport to say that their team or their athlete gets the short end of the calls made by officials, or the unlucky bounces of the ball, or the especially bad luck in terms of scheduling and logistics, or the preponderance of negative bias on the part of journalists and commentators.
A good 98 percent of the time, these claims are nothing more than venting.
All athletes get bad calls or unlucky bounces. Most get bad scheduling. Journalists ARE biased on a broad level... sometimes in an unprofessional way, but usually in an innocent and reasonable way.
(Translation: Every person has a story, a background, and a lens through which s/he sees the world. Modern journalism education has embraced the idea that a lack of bias is a myth. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Human beings have biases -- the important point is to acknowledge them and be up front about them, so that they can be corrected. A journalist or commentator who claims lack of bias but clearly takes sides is far worse than someone who acknowledges a bias and makes a highly transparent effort to play things straight down the middle. Yes, I wrote for a Roger Federer blog in 2011 -- as such, any and all public communications on social media or other widely visible forums have to play it straight. The moment I lose that, the moment I should no longer have professional standing as a writer/blogger/content provider.)
However, while 98 percent of sports debates (or situations) amount to cathartic, feel-good expression without a significant basis in fact, consider the two percent (or three, or one -- it's a small percentage) in which the complaint is rooted in reality.
One such prominent example: Novak Djokovic fans, who were entirely right to be livid on Manic Monday at Wimbledon, which turned into Mad Monday when the supervisors of the tournament made one of their worst decisions ever.
Even though Roger Federer's Centre Court match -- the last on the regular schedule for that court on Monday -- ended just before 7 p.m. local time in England, the powers that be:
A) did not immediately put Djokovic and Adrian Mannarino -- scheduled for No. 1 Court -- onto Centre Court;
B) did not adjust when the Rafael Nadal-Gilles Muller match on No. 1 Court went deep into a fifth set -- 7-7, 10-10, 12-12, and on;
C) didn't even make immediate announcements to the public so that spectators could remain for a provisionally scheduled Djokovic center court match, if necessary;
D) when the Nadal match ended, did NOT finally come to their senses and put Djokovic on court under the Centre Court roof for a night match.
and E) came up with the absurd explanation that spectators "swiftly" moving across the grounds represented a legitimate reason to postpone the match until Tuesday.
Djokovic fans complained that this was anti-Djokovic bias rooted in a desire to see Federer win.
While that addendum about wanting Federer to win is hard to fully support -- what text or video or backroom discussion could unearth proof of such a leaning? -- the fundamental point about an anti-Djokovic bias is hard, if not impossible, to refute... but not in the way you might think.
No, Wimbledon supervisors are not set against Djokovic, intent on doing things in a way which specifically hurts the No. 2 seed. Disliking a player to the point of inconveniencing his/her title pursuit is the sort of thing which, if given any traction or legitimacy, would have a nightmarish effect on a tournament, especially one of Wimbledon's stature. As appalling as Wimbledon's actions were -- more will be said on them in a moment -- let's step back and realize that Djokovic was still a victim of bad luck:
1) Nadal-Muller lasted nearly five hours;
2) Wimbledon starts its pre-quarterfinal show-court order of play at 1 p.m. and not 11:15 a.m., the way the other three majors do (which needs to change next year);
3) The roof on No. 1 Court won't be ready until 2019. Had it been ready this year, it is likely that Djokovic and Mannarino would have played their match and finished it Monday.
A lot of things had to happen BEFORE Wimbledon officials acted like idiots... but of course, once Djokovic suffered from bad luck, THEN he had to endure the idiocy of the people who run Wimbledon.
Let's briefly but very forcefully establish why Djokovic fans are right... and why this is such a horrible episode worthy of the strongest possible degree of criticism.
*
No, Wimbledon supervisors don't dislike Djokovic or want Federer to win (they would surely LIKE seeing Federer win, but they are not PLANNING the tournament so that by their devious machinations, Federer will lift the trophy).
The more precise INITIAL reality of Wimbledon ATP scheduling is that organizers ARE biased FOR Federer and Andy Murray. Federer enjoys runaway popularity, and Murray is the home-nation player. That Federer and Murray get just about every break at Wimbledon -- or at least nearly every benefit of the doubt on the schedule -- should not need to be debated.
Moreover, narrowly viewed, there is nothing wrong with that particular reality. (In a WIDER view, there is, given the slights to WTA stars regarding Centre and No. 1 Court scheduling, but narrowly, Federer and Murray have earned preferential scheduling.)
This is the crux of the matter: While putting Federer on Centre and Djokovic on No. 1 Court is not that big a deal (despite Centre having a roof and No. 1 not having one, the ability to switch courts should have rectified that problem), what Wimbledon did on Monday very clearly violated a spirit of fair play.
It is always important for any tennis tournament -- if it can reasonably do so -- to have all of a given round of a tournament end on the same day, so that the remnant of the field all gets to rest and/or play on the same days with the same breaks between matches. This is Scheduling 101.
Wimbledon, point-blank, DID -- as a matter of pure fact -- have enough time to ensure that Djokovic and Mannarino could end Monday having played their match, to establish parity with the other seven men's quarterfinalists.
Wimbledon night matches under the Centre Court roof can go until roughly 11 p.m. local time, with Wimbledon Village shutting down at or very close to midnight. Given that the Federer match ended at 6:50 p.m., the most obvious play was to simply put Djokovic and Mannarino on Centre Court then. A day match (i.e., no roof) could have been wedged in for at least two hours.
Okay, though: Wimbledon might have had a contingency plan which, though debatable, would have retained SOME logic. Supervisors might have rationalized that if Nadal and Muller played until darkness, THAT MATCH would have needed to finish under Centre Court's roof.
Again, that's not a fully convincing point, but it is at least somewhat logical. Fine.
Just one problem: Nadal-Muller ended at 8:32.
As soon as that match ended, Djokovic and Mannarino had a chance to warm up, hit the first ball near 9 p.m., and play two hours of tennis before 11.
Maybe that would not have been enough time to finish the match, but enough tennis would have been played to bring both players close to a conclusion, such that any Tuesday resumption would (probably) have been minimal, allowing for an accordingly reasonable turnaround heading into Wednesday's quarterfinal against Tomas Berdych.
Putting Djokovic and Mannarino on at 7:20 (-ish) was the obvious move, but the galling part of this is that putting them on at 9 was the second obvious move.
Wimbledon made NEITHER move. All of this was preventable, a clear disservice to Djokovic and Mannarino.
This leads to the simple but sickening conclusion: Though generosity toward Federer and Murray is hardly wrong, idiocy AGAINST other players conveys the effect of wanting to help Federer and Murray.
Wimbledon supervisors can say 10 million times that they are not biased in favor of Federer, but when they violate the principle of fair play -- namely, all players should end a round on the same day if possible -- they tilt the playing field as a point of plain fact.
Federer WILL have a full day of rest before his quarterfinal. Djokovic -- a possible semifinal opponent of the Swiss -- will not.
I would bet that Wimbledon honchos sincerely and earnestly have no intention of WANTING to shaft Djokovic... but when their actions so clearly alter and disrupt the balance of the schedule, their results -- their product -- certainly create the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
Take any ethics course. Avoiding the appearance of wrongdoing is part of the transparency, accountability and integrity which inform and reflect any professional organization, any corporation or public entity in good standing with its community and/or its clients.
Wimbledon violated that basic Ethics 101 principle, in much the same way that it forced Stan Wawrinka to play three matches in three days in the 2014 tournament instead of ensuring that the men's field was balanced.
Who benefited from that awful scheduling error? Yes -- Federer.
There is a difference between giving Player A a schedule-based benefit, and giving Player B horrible treatment. Claims of no bias against Player B might be entirely emotionally sincere, but when a competitive imbalance between A and B emerges because of entirely preventable mistakes, claims of fair play can no longer be taken seriously.
Djokovic fans -- ultimately -- are right... no matter how much Wimbledon officials might smile or laugh or try to shrug off such a claim. From most sports fans, that is an incendiary claim.
From Djokovic fans, it's the plain truth.
A good 98 percent of the time, these claims are nothing more than venting.
All athletes get bad calls or unlucky bounces. Most get bad scheduling. Journalists ARE biased on a broad level... sometimes in an unprofessional way, but usually in an innocent and reasonable way.
(Translation: Every person has a story, a background, and a lens through which s/he sees the world. Modern journalism education has embraced the idea that a lack of bias is a myth. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Human beings have biases -- the important point is to acknowledge them and be up front about them, so that they can be corrected. A journalist or commentator who claims lack of bias but clearly takes sides is far worse than someone who acknowledges a bias and makes a highly transparent effort to play things straight down the middle. Yes, I wrote for a Roger Federer blog in 2011 -- as such, any and all public communications on social media or other widely visible forums have to play it straight. The moment I lose that, the moment I should no longer have professional standing as a writer/blogger/content provider.)
However, while 98 percent of sports debates (or situations) amount to cathartic, feel-good expression without a significant basis in fact, consider the two percent (or three, or one -- it's a small percentage) in which the complaint is rooted in reality.
One such prominent example: Novak Djokovic fans, who were entirely right to be livid on Manic Monday at Wimbledon, which turned into Mad Monday when the supervisors of the tournament made one of their worst decisions ever.
Even though Roger Federer's Centre Court match -- the last on the regular schedule for that court on Monday -- ended just before 7 p.m. local time in England, the powers that be:
A) did not immediately put Djokovic and Adrian Mannarino -- scheduled for No. 1 Court -- onto Centre Court;
B) did not adjust when the Rafael Nadal-Gilles Muller match on No. 1 Court went deep into a fifth set -- 7-7, 10-10, 12-12, and on;
C) didn't even make immediate announcements to the public so that spectators could remain for a provisionally scheduled Djokovic center court match, if necessary;
D) when the Nadal match ended, did NOT finally come to their senses and put Djokovic on court under the Centre Court roof for a night match.
and E) came up with the absurd explanation that spectators "swiftly" moving across the grounds represented a legitimate reason to postpone the match until Tuesday.
Djokovic fans complained that this was anti-Djokovic bias rooted in a desire to see Federer win.
While that addendum about wanting Federer to win is hard to fully support -- what text or video or backroom discussion could unearth proof of such a leaning? -- the fundamental point about an anti-Djokovic bias is hard, if not impossible, to refute... but not in the way you might think.
No, Wimbledon supervisors are not set against Djokovic, intent on doing things in a way which specifically hurts the No. 2 seed. Disliking a player to the point of inconveniencing his/her title pursuit is the sort of thing which, if given any traction or legitimacy, would have a nightmarish effect on a tournament, especially one of Wimbledon's stature. As appalling as Wimbledon's actions were -- more will be said on them in a moment -- let's step back and realize that Djokovic was still a victim of bad luck:
1) Nadal-Muller lasted nearly five hours;
2) Wimbledon starts its pre-quarterfinal show-court order of play at 1 p.m. and not 11:15 a.m., the way the other three majors do (which needs to change next year);
3) The roof on No. 1 Court won't be ready until 2019. Had it been ready this year, it is likely that Djokovic and Mannarino would have played their match and finished it Monday.
A lot of things had to happen BEFORE Wimbledon officials acted like idiots... but of course, once Djokovic suffered from bad luck, THEN he had to endure the idiocy of the people who run Wimbledon.
Let's briefly but very forcefully establish why Djokovic fans are right... and why this is such a horrible episode worthy of the strongest possible degree of criticism.
*
No, Wimbledon supervisors don't dislike Djokovic or want Federer to win (they would surely LIKE seeing Federer win, but they are not PLANNING the tournament so that by their devious machinations, Federer will lift the trophy).
The more precise INITIAL reality of Wimbledon ATP scheduling is that organizers ARE biased FOR Federer and Andy Murray. Federer enjoys runaway popularity, and Murray is the home-nation player. That Federer and Murray get just about every break at Wimbledon -- or at least nearly every benefit of the doubt on the schedule -- should not need to be debated.
Moreover, narrowly viewed, there is nothing wrong with that particular reality. (In a WIDER view, there is, given the slights to WTA stars regarding Centre and No. 1 Court scheduling, but narrowly, Federer and Murray have earned preferential scheduling.)
This is the crux of the matter: While putting Federer on Centre and Djokovic on No. 1 Court is not that big a deal (despite Centre having a roof and No. 1 not having one, the ability to switch courts should have rectified that problem), what Wimbledon did on Monday very clearly violated a spirit of fair play.
It is always important for any tennis tournament -- if it can reasonably do so -- to have all of a given round of a tournament end on the same day, so that the remnant of the field all gets to rest and/or play on the same days with the same breaks between matches. This is Scheduling 101.
Wimbledon, point-blank, DID -- as a matter of pure fact -- have enough time to ensure that Djokovic and Mannarino could end Monday having played their match, to establish parity with the other seven men's quarterfinalists.
Wimbledon night matches under the Centre Court roof can go until roughly 11 p.m. local time, with Wimbledon Village shutting down at or very close to midnight. Given that the Federer match ended at 6:50 p.m., the most obvious play was to simply put Djokovic and Mannarino on Centre Court then. A day match (i.e., no roof) could have been wedged in for at least two hours.
Okay, though: Wimbledon might have had a contingency plan which, though debatable, would have retained SOME logic. Supervisors might have rationalized that if Nadal and Muller played until darkness, THAT MATCH would have needed to finish under Centre Court's roof.
Again, that's not a fully convincing point, but it is at least somewhat logical. Fine.
Just one problem: Nadal-Muller ended at 8:32.
As soon as that match ended, Djokovic and Mannarino had a chance to warm up, hit the first ball near 9 p.m., and play two hours of tennis before 11.
Maybe that would not have been enough time to finish the match, but enough tennis would have been played to bring both players close to a conclusion, such that any Tuesday resumption would (probably) have been minimal, allowing for an accordingly reasonable turnaround heading into Wednesday's quarterfinal against Tomas Berdych.
Putting Djokovic and Mannarino on at 7:20 (-ish) was the obvious move, but the galling part of this is that putting them on at 9 was the second obvious move.
Wimbledon made NEITHER move. All of this was preventable, a clear disservice to Djokovic and Mannarino.
This leads to the simple but sickening conclusion: Though generosity toward Federer and Murray is hardly wrong, idiocy AGAINST other players conveys the effect of wanting to help Federer and Murray.
Wimbledon supervisors can say 10 million times that they are not biased in favor of Federer, but when they violate the principle of fair play -- namely, all players should end a round on the same day if possible -- they tilt the playing field as a point of plain fact.
Federer WILL have a full day of rest before his quarterfinal. Djokovic -- a possible semifinal opponent of the Swiss -- will not.
I would bet that Wimbledon honchos sincerely and earnestly have no intention of WANTING to shaft Djokovic... but when their actions so clearly alter and disrupt the balance of the schedule, their results -- their product -- certainly create the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
Take any ethics course. Avoiding the appearance of wrongdoing is part of the transparency, accountability and integrity which inform and reflect any professional organization, any corporation or public entity in good standing with its community and/or its clients.
Wimbledon violated that basic Ethics 101 principle, in much the same way that it forced Stan Wawrinka to play three matches in three days in the 2014 tournament instead of ensuring that the men's field was balanced.
Who benefited from that awful scheduling error? Yes -- Federer.
There is a difference between giving Player A a schedule-based benefit, and giving Player B horrible treatment. Claims of no bias against Player B might be entirely emotionally sincere, but when a competitive imbalance between A and B emerges because of entirely preventable mistakes, claims of fair play can no longer be taken seriously.
Djokovic fans -- ultimately -- are right... no matter how much Wimbledon officials might smile or laugh or try to shrug off such a claim. From most sports fans, that is an incendiary claim.
From Djokovic fans, it's the plain truth.
'I would bet that Wimbledon honchos sincerely and earnestly have no intention of WANTING to shaft Djokovic.' Sorry but in my opinion you are wrong, or perhaps can't afford to speak the truth about this. While I agree with most of what you say and thank you for writing it, please remember what happened last year when he was put on Court 1 over two days, and yippee, he lost. He may not have won it's true, but at that time he was No1 and defending champion. The Wimbledon organisers wanted a Murray-Federer final, except that ultimately Raonic got in the way. They want the same this year and although Djokovic is not the force he was, they are taking no chances that he might find form at the eleventh hour - he is showing signs of it. They are determined that Federer will win, reaching 20GS this year be it by fair means or foul, and this has now become transparently obvious.
ReplyDelete