WTA ATP Aus Open 1/17 - 1/30 2022

[the Moz]

Welcome to the fold Andrey

[ashkor87]

Djokovic non-committal about Australia in recent article with that same reporter where he laid out the rest of his schedule for the year. He's concerned about the quarantine period and doesn't share his vaccination status (which always means one thing and I'm not sure why they even bother avoiding a no).

i read a comment, I think by Cahill, that Djokovic had been to a concert in New York, which he would not have been allowed to, had he not been vaccinated.. so there is a chance he is just being coy, on principle - he is actually vaccinated..

[Deuce]

i read a comment, I think by Cahill, that Djokovic had been to a concert in New York, which he would not have been allowed to, had he not been vaccinated.. so there is a chance he is just being coy, on principle - he is actually vaccinated..

... or that he simply got preferential treatment at the concert because he's 'famous'.
Given how 'celebrities' can get away with just about anything in the celebrity obsessed culture of North America, that would be my guess.

[ashkor87]

i read a comment, I think by Cahill, that Djokovic had been to a concert in New York, which he would not have been allowed to, had he not been vaccinated.. so there is a chance he is just being coy, on principle - he is actually vaccinated..

... or that he simply got preferential treatment at the concert because he's 'famous'.
Given how 'celebrities' can get away with just about anything in the celebrity obsessed culture of North America, that would be my guess.

True enough...

[ti-amie]

[ashkor87]

Djokovic is losing it..made a silly comment about how Russian and Chinese vaccines might be ok..what sense does that make?

[mick1303]

I wonder if the atp would withdraw accreditation to the ausopen if it doesn't allow non- vaccinated players ...any atp event has to be Open? There have been precedents, I think, when countries have had tournaments taken away because they would not allow certain players to play.... Usually, political grounds, of course...COVID is certainly testing us all...!

This would amount to the ATP would not offering points and providing support staff, like trainers. Guessing the ITF doesn’t have their own. Players could still enter and earn the prize money. I don’t think this will happen, but the thought exercise is interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If WTA can pull events from China for the reason that constitutional rights of one retired player were violated, I don't see why ATP can't exercise its authority. This concerns plenty of players who do not want their rights to be violated. And ATP is association of players above all (at least it should be). Slams belong to ITF as a trademark and financially (but mostly each slam is its own enterprise). But ATP has some authority here - it awards ranking points. If ATP does not recognize an event - it essentially becomes and exo. It will be forever asterisked and the winner may not be considered "real slam winner" if the field will be severely depleted. Remember Wimbledon boycott of 1973. I dare you to find an article about Kodes win, that does not mention a boycott.

[Deuce]

Well, firstly, it is not the ATP or ITF deciding that non-vaccinated players cannot play. At this point, these entities simply don't seem to have the balls to do that, unfortunately. So they can't be held responsible - what are they supposed to do? Move the tournament to a country which allows non-vaccinated people to enter? No.
It is the country of Australia / state of Victoria which is not permitting unvaccinated persons to enter.

Secondly, the tournament IS open to everyone who qualifies. And people who are not vaccinated simply don't qualify - just like the player ranked #953 in the world doesn't qualify. Just like someone who's not permitted entry to Australia for any reason doesn't qualify.
I see no problem with this at all.

What if a player was convicted of a crime which resulted in him not being allowed to enter Australia (or the USA, or England, or France) - would that Major then not be called an 'open' tournament just because that player couldn't play in it?
And this situation is much more easily remedied than if the player had committed a crime which rendered him ineligible to enter a country. In this case, he needs only to get vaccinated to be able to enter the country.

It seems pretty evident that it's much easier and quicker for a person ranked in the top 20 to get vaccinated in order to qualify to play in the main draw of the tournament than it is for the 953rd ranked player to get into the top 100 or so to qualify to play in the qualification round.
The player who simply needs to get vaccinated in order to qualify to play has his fate entirely in his own hands - it does not depend on anyone else, or on him being good enough to qualify. He has a black and white decision to make, and he knows the benefits and consequences of each choice. He makes his choice - either way -, and that's the end of the story.

So, in the end, it is indeed an open tournament - but there are certain criteria which must be met, as is the case with pretty much everything in life. Being vaccinated is just one of the criteria to be able to enter into this country to play in the tournament - and is probably the easiest one to accomplish, at that.

[ashkor87]

Well, firstly, it is not the ATP or ITF deciding that non-vaccinated players cannot play. At this point, these entities simply don't seem to have the balls to do that, unfortunately. So they can't be held responsible - what are they supposed to do? Move the tournament to a country which allows non-vaccinated people to enter? No.
It is the country of Australia / state of Victoria which is not permitting unvaccinated persons to enter.

Secondly, the tournament IS open to everyone who qualifies. And people who are not vaccinated simply don't qualify - just like the player ranked #953 in the world doesn't qualify. Just like someone who's not permitted entry to Australia for any reason doesn't qualify.
I see no problem with this at all.

What if a player was convicted of a crime which resulted in him not being allowed to enter Australia (or the USA, or England, or France) - would that Major then not be called an 'open' tournament just because that player couldn't play in it?
And this situation is much more easily remedied than if the player had committed a crime which rendered him ineligible to enter a country. In this case, he needs only to get vaccinated to be able to enter the country.

It seems pretty evident that it's much easier and quicker for a person ranked in the top 20 to get vaccinated in order to qualify to play in the main draw of the tournament than it is for the 953rd ranked player to get into the top 100 or so to qualify to play in the qualification round.
The player who simply needs to get vaccinated in order to qualify to play has his fate entirely in his own hands - it does not depend on anyone else, or on him being good enough to qualify. He has a black and white decision to make, and he knows the benefits and consequences of each choice. He makes his choice - either way -, and that's the end of the story.

So, in the end, it is indeed an open tournament - but there are certain criteria which must be met, as is the case with pretty much everything in life. Being vaccinated is just one of the criteria to be able to enter into this country to play in the tournament - and is probably the easiest one to accomplish, at that.

Oh you are quite right but this is an interesting thought-exercise...where do we draw the line? Djokovic and other anti-vaxxers may have a semi-religious principle they are standing on.. Wimbledon also insists on wearing white! I always wondered what would happen if that rule is challenged in a court! Interestingly, the Queen never wears white, for quite another reason, of course.

[Deuce]

Are you saying that the Queen is not a virgin?


I think where we draw the line is with the rules of entry of any given country.
The issue here is the age old one of a country's or entity's rights vs. the individual's rights.

Every country is an independent entity. There is no universal law which applies in every country. For example, at the recent Formula 1 race in Qatar, all team members were not permitted to wear shorts at any time. This, despite the hot weather. While this may seem silly and impractical to us here in North America, it is quite normal and accepted in Qatar and some other countries. And the best course of action is to respect that. If one disagrees strongly with the laws and/or customs of a country, that person can choose not to go to the country. Going to the country and defying the country's laws and customs usually doesn't end well.

It's similar with the Wimbledon whites. As an independent entity - much like an independent country - Wimbledon has the right to establish its own rules and policies. Therefore, I don't see how any court challenge would ever be permitted against the rule of wearing white clothing at Wimbledon.

[ponchi101]

...

If WTA can pull events from China for the reason that constitutional rights of one retired player were violated, I don't see why ATP can't exercise its authority. This concerns plenty of players who do not want their rights to be violated. And ATP is association of players above all (at least it should be). Slams belong to ITF as a trademark and financially (but mostly each slam is its own enterprise). But ATP has some authority here - it awards ranking points. If ATP does not recognize an event - it essentially becomes and exo. It will be forever asterisked and the winner may not be considered "real slam winner" if the field will be severely depleted. Remember Wimbledon boycott of 1973. I dare you to find an article about Kodes win, that does not mention a boycott.

There would not even be a need for the WTA or ATP to get involved in any of this if the players, individually or collectively, would simple announce that they will not play China until they can meet with Peng, outside of China, behind closed doors (for the people in the meeting) and get her side of the story. A letter signed by Serena, Naomi, Barty, and almost all players of significance (Raducanu, fluent in Mandarin, could be highly symbolic) would do much more than anything the WTA can really achieve.
For the ATP, a win-win scenario. Roger, Rafa, Novak and the new crew would score a major PR victory by standing by Peng. Of course, Roger has too many financial interests in China, but all other players would stand to win considerable respect if doing so.
Now, if you allow me, I am going to write my letter to Santa for my Xmas presents. I do it alphabetically and my first gift will be ATOM BOMB LAUNCHER.

[ponchi101]

...
Oh you are quite right but this is an interesting thought-exercise...where do we draw the line? Djokovic and other anti-vaxxers may have a semi-religious principle they are standing on.. Wimbledon also insists on wearing white! I always wondered what would happen if that rule is challenged in a court! Interestingly, the Queen never wears white, for quite another reason, of course.

I love your idea of the SEMI RELIGIOUS principle. If it is semi-religious, it is also semi-secular, as it stands in the middle
Serious here, you hit the nail on the head with the Wimby example. Wimbledon demands that you wear right, and nobody's rights are being trampled. Agreed, getting a medicine is something of a different nature, but the point is that it is not TENNIS AUSTRALIA imposing the condition, it is AUSTRALIA, the country.
There is really so little else to talk about it. And knowing some of these players, I would really look out for the fake ID. Totally a possibility.

[Fastbackss]

Saudi Arabia has removed their dress code indicating shorts were not okay for the impending f1 race

[mick1303]

...

Secondly, the tournament IS open to everyone who qualifies. And people who are not vaccinated simply don't qualify - just like the player ranked #953 in the world doesn't qualify. Just like someone who's not permitted entry to Australia for any reason doesn't qualify.
I see no problem with this at all.
...

I see PLENTY of problems with this statement. "ANY reason"? ANY? Ok, say the tornament in Saudi Arabia says that jews can't qualify for their event. Would your sentiment be the same? Can the organizers then call their event "Open" and keep a straight face?
For a tennis (or rather any sports) person "qualify" means one thing - merit. You win the qualification or you reach certain ranking position and you qualify. All other stuff is not about tennis, but rather about politics (or whatever drives this insanity of over-restricting every aspect of life).
And one does not even have to go to the different country to see different rules for quarantine and whatnot. He only has to go to Western Australia.

[JTContinental]

The vaccine is science, not politics. Your comparison of discrimination based on ethnicity to getting a shot in the arm is an obvious false equivalent.