Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[ti-amie]

[meganfernandez]

Aren't we all thinking the same thing? He'll be hounded by that (faint) asterisk forever. I admire the person's balls to ask that. But it is a pretty pointless question, especially in a presser situation, which I assume it was. In a longer conversation, something more in-depth, it might have come up.

[meganfernandez]

All your posts are just the perfect reminder of why I stopped playing leagues so long ago. Yes, that is a total jerk move, especially in a social context. Don't hate her, indeed, but do avoid her. I would.
Terrible story:
I walked into the club and reached the courts area. A weekend match with another club is going on, on the women's side. Things are already very heated, as the match was not being played amicably. The club's pro comes to me and asks me if I would mind refereeing the match that is going on. Just then, something happens on the court, and one of the women (our club) asks one of the players what the score is. Not even trying to drop her voice, that woman replies: "I could tell you what the score is if this f****** b**** were not cheating every point". It was completely audible.
I told the pro, who was my friend: "They are calling each other FB. There is no way I get on that chair; they will pluck my eyes out the moment I call a line".
Never even came close to playing matches again, at any level. I had stopped years before but there was no need for the aggravation.

I'm seriously considering not playing leagues anymore. Not mainly because of (expletive) people, but also because I'm not sure I like that kind of competition. Might rather play singles leagues and ladders and such.

[JazzNU]

Aren't we all thinking the same thing? He'll be hounded by that (faint) asterisk forever. I admire the person's balls to ask that. But it is a pretty pointless question, especially in a presser situation, which I assume it was. In a longer conversation, something more in-depth, it might have come up.

I'm not thinking that at all. Dominic should have and almost did beat Novak at the Aussie Open. He's beaten Novak on other occasions. I'm not assuming Novak would've won this one and he deserved to be disqualified. And the point the guy makes is a good one. I haven't heard any reporters say that Federer's French Open title or Career Slam have an asterisk next to it and I definitely don't remember them asking him that question.

[Liamvalid]

After Novak was defaulted, I did think Rafa would be kicking himself for not going to USA. But after seeing the way Thiem played in those later rounds, I doubt Nadal (or Djokovic) would have won the title anyways. The shock for me was that Thiem went out so tamely in Oz

[ponchi101]

I find the question valid. People may have thought about it. When Roger won RG, I did hear people say exactly that he would not have won it if he had faced Rafa in the final. I have heard people say Rafa would have beaten Stan at that Aussie final if his back had not given up on him.
Those hypotheticals are just that. Heck, the question is much more interesting that 95% of all questions asked in a press interview: "When you were facing break point, how did you manage to win the point?"
"Because.... that's what pro-players do, and I am one? "

[skatingfan]

I think the questions valid, but asking in the presser of a different tournament seems weird - more a career retrospective interview type question - but if Thiem, like Wawrinka, adds another couple slam titles the question will fade away.

[meganfernandez]

I think the questions valid, but asking in the presser of a different tournament seems weird - more a career retrospective interview type question - but if Thiem, like Wawrinka, adds another couple slam titles the question will fade away.

True. The weird circumstances of Novak's default also add some shelf life to Thiem's situation, his first GS title. But the question highlights how differently fans and most media think about the pro game than the athletes themselves. There's so much we can't relate to. Most people assume Novak would have won; I doubt Novak or Thiem assume that. They know how slim the margins are. Yes, Thiem knows and respects Novak's level and would acknowledge that he was the favorite. But probably not the runaway favorite. Thiem took takenNovak to 5 in Melbourne that year. I bet Thiem would have felt perfectly confident and ready for that match. It might not have gone his way, but it he wouldn't have been a huge underdog.

[ti-amie]

[meganfernandez]

I bet Acapulco still gave appearance fees.

[JazzNU]

I find the question valid. People may have thought about it. When Roger won RG, I did hear people say exactly that he would not have won it if he had faced Rafa in the final. I have heard people say Rafa would have beaten Stan at that Aussie final if his back had not given up on him.
Those hypotheticals are just that. Heck, the question is much more interesting that 95% of all questions asked in a press interview: "When you were facing break point, how did you manage to win the point?"
"Because.... that's what pro-players do, and I am one? "

Sure we've all heard it. FROM FANS. Do you remember credentialed reporters asking Roger those questions about his French Open title or getting the Career Slam? To Stan about his Aussie Open title?

[ponchi101]

Nope. In that case, first time indeed.

[meganfernandez]

Nope. In that case, first time indeed.

(Why can't I delete this duplicate post? Where is the X button?)

[ponchi101]

And now that we mention it. We spoke little of this, or I can't recall if at all. What do we think?
I think that if that errant ball had not gone the wrong way, Novak would have won the final. Sure, Carreño Busta was playing well and so were the other guys, but I can't see them beating Novak on a hard court at a slam. Not yet.
(Recent Aussie Open final myopia at work, admittedly).

[meganfernandez]

Nope. In that case, first time indeed.

First that we know of. And "the media" isn't a monolithic body. The question might be, would this reporter have asked Roger or Stan the same question? Maybe, who knows.

Also, in those other cases, the favorite lost; he wasn't defaulted amid crazy circumstances. Not quite the same as "think you would have won if your opponent had not been hurt" (Stan in his first Slam title, vs Rafa). That game can go on forever. So it's also perhaps the first time the perceived heavy favorite was out of the event while still in top form and the person who's next in line got his first Slam. The storyline is "can Next Gen knock off the Big 3" and Thiem is king of the Next Gen (well, generously, I know he's older... next gen of Slam champs). So all that's in the soup.

All that said, I don't think this reporter could have expected a good answer, so it seems like a pointless and wasted question to me, but that's their business.