Talk About Tennis 2.0

skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 11:24 pm

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:30 pm It's interesting that the ATP has left out the Laver Cup incident where there are alleged to be witnesses and is focusing on Shanghai where there were no witnesses. Interesting choice.

What year was the Laver Cup incident, because the first couple of editions of that event weren't ATP events?

It was the 2019 Laver Cup

Laver Cup isn't a real ATP event, they likely have little purview over it legally speaking. It being a sanctioned event allowed it to get on the calendar which gave it access to the marketing arm of the ATP and the chair umpires and training staff. If you think about it, even for 2021, the ATP signage at the arena was minimal in comparison to a real ATP tour event where points are accumulated.

But in 2019, even more questionable. It was planned from 2018, so contracts signed then or at the latest, early 2019. Agreement with ATP around Spring of 2019 if memory serves, just a few months before the event took place. ATP likely has nothing to do with this even now and certainly not for 2019. The overseer of all the event contracts, I'd assume that's Team8, is who is really running the event, they or one of their financial partners is the most likely organization that assumed the liability for the event.

mick1303 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 6:30 am ...

I'd think the Martina Cup or Navratilova Cup would be more apropos. I'd object, but Graf Cup is another possibility. It could also just be like the Ryder Cup, since that what the idea is behind the Laver Cup and just go with something along the lines of the Ellison Cup.

I'm wondering why is that nobody mentioned the most obvious choice - who won a ladies Calendar Year Grand Slam around the time Laver won his? None other that Margaret Court. Is she like Voldemort here - the name that is prohibited to mention?

It is not prohibited, although I am stating the obvious. If you are a fan of Court, so be it.
Back to the question: remember there have even been players that have been very vocal about renaming Margaret Court Arena at Melbourne park. For an event that would rely very much on "niceness" and "appeal" by the honored player (Laver is always there at "his" cup), having Court and her opinions at the event would be marketing insanity.
And for many people, immoral.

As far as I know Margaret Court Arena still has her name. Also "being vocal" and "being right" is not the same )

mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:51 am As far as I know Margaret Court Arena still has her name. Also "being vocal" and "being right" is not the same )

Are you saying that you agree with keeping Margaret Court Arena's name?

Kevin

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 6:00 pm

60!?! Out of 750 sent??? Can we offer a small incentive for returning the survey?

It's a start

It could mean both things:
Players are so open about it it is not a subject they are interested in.
Or:
It is a third rail topic, so they don't want to get involved.

mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:51 am As far as I know Margaret Court Arena still has her name. Also "being vocal" and "being right" is not the same )

Yes and yes. The point being said is that Mrs Court's name could cause some problems. Imagine the next time a LGBTQ players reaches the upper echelons of the game, and plays at such an event. The conflict would be conspicuous.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:34 am

mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 9:51 am As far as I know Margaret Court Arena still has her name. Also "being vocal" and "being right" is not the same )

Yes and yes. The point being said is that Mrs Court's name could cause some problems. Imagine the next time a LGBTQ players reaches the upper echelons of the game, and plays at such an event. The conflict would be conspicuous.

If I can chime in here, it would hopefully not just be LGBTQ players. If I were a pro player and there were a David Duke Arena, (for those who may not know, he was the leader of the KKK years ago and still gets ink every once in a while), I sure in the heck wouldn't play in it, and I'm white. Just sayin'.

Kevin

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:34 am Yes and yes. The point being said is that Mrs Court's name could cause some problems. Imagine the next time a LGBTQ players reaches the upper echelons of the game, and plays at such an event. The conflict would be conspicuous.

She's also a racist from way back. And I would hope many more than just LGBTQ and black players would find her name being involved in any way objectionable. Nothing should ever be named after her ever again. Full stop.


ETA:Ahh, I see my comment echoes Kevin's. His didn't show up for me when I was writing.

I'm wondering if someone here is familiar with the rules of national representation in the Davis Cup? It looks like it is allowed for foreign nationals to participate in the teams. For instance - in the recent tie between Lebanon and Brazil there was a player on the Lebanese team - Benjamin HASSAN. Both ITF and Davis Cup site itself list him as German. Is it something that was always allowed? Or some recent change in the rules?

Regarding Margaret Court: since I'm from former Soviet Union - for a long time I was deprived of wide variety of information, so IDK how her views evolved. The information I had in the past were tennis results and occasionally some short footage. And those results were commanding respect. In tennis you can't hide behind the team or officials (latter is not 100% true, but the friendly officials can impact the result only to limited degree). It is one-on-one and she earned all those wins by herself. I think these results in individual sport cannot be achieved without high mark of personal integrity. Also what I personally resent is a gang mentality when everyone starts targeting certain individual or group in an orchestrated manner. This is in a creepy way resembles how during the worst Stalin times the "enemies of the people" were vilified...

She absolutely earned those wins. (We won't talk about her inflated Slam count due to nobody traveling to Australia in those years...)

She absolutely has said vile things.

But she said them repeatedly.

She was given a chance to provide context on her view , to recant.

She didn't. In fact she doubled down. Then tripled down.

Bad behaviour at some point can't be rewarded. And as an organisation that is very much public facing...and of course getting public funding (let's not forget the almighty dollar) ...can't be supporting that, even indirectly