by ti-amie DAY 13 SATURDAY 9 JULY
COMPLETE
CENTRE COURT 2:00PM
LADIES' SINGLES - FINAL
E. Rybakina (KAZ) 17 v O. Jabeur (TUN) 3
GENTLEMEN'S DOUBLES - FINAL
M. Ebden (AUS) 14/M. Purcell (AUS) 14 v N. Mektic (CRO) 2/M. Pavic (CRO) 2
NO.1 COURT 1:00PM
GIRLS' SINGLES - FINAL
L. Hovde (USA) 1 v L. Udvardy (HUN) 7
GENTLEMEN'S INVITATION DOUBLES - ROUND ROBIN
T. Haas (GER)/M. Philippoussis (AUS) v A. Clement (FRA)/M. Llodra (FRA)
NO.3 COURT 11:00AM
LADIES' WHEELCHAIR SINGLES - FINAL
D. De Groot (NED) 1 v Y. Kamiji (JPN) 2
NOT BEFORE: 1:00PM
GENTLEMEN'S WHEELCHAIR DOUBLES - FINAL
winner of
A. Hewett (GBR)/G. Reid (GBR) v T. Egberink (NED)/J. Gerard (BEL) v G. Fernandez (ARG) 2/S. Kunieda (JPN) 2
COURT 12 11:00AM
INVITATION MIXED DOUBLES - ROUND ROBIN
M. Woodforde (AUS)/I. Majoli (CRO) v G. Ivanisevic (CRO)/M. Pierce (FRA)
NOT BEFORE: 12:15PM
BOYS' DOUBLES - FINAL
G. Debru (FRA) 5/P. Inchauspe (FRA) 5 v S. Gorzny (USA)/A. Michelsen (USA)
GIRLS' 14&UNDER SINGLES - SEMI-FINALS
A. Tatu (ROU) 1 v S. Larraya Guidi (ARG)
GIRLS' 14&UNDER SINGLES - SEMI-FINALS
A. Soare (ROU) 5 v I. Britton (GBR)
COURT 18 11:00AM
LADIES' INVITATION DOUBLES - ROUND ROBIN
N. Dechy (FRA)/B. Schett (AUT) v A-L. Groenefeld (GER)/K. Sprem (CRO)
NOT BEFORE: 12:15PM
GIRLS' DOUBLES - FINAL
K. Cross (CAN) 4/V. Mboko (CAN) 4 v R. Nijkamp (NED)/A. Okutoyi (KEN)
GENTLEMEN'S INVITATION DOUBLES - ROUND ROBIN
B. Bryan (USA)/M. Bryan (USA) v J. Melzer (AUT)/G. Muller (LUX)
LADIES' INVITATION DOUBLES - ROUND ROBIN
D. Hantuchova (SVK)/L. Robson (GBR) v J. Jankovic (SRB)/A. Radwanska (POL)
COURT 4 11:00AM
BOYS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
M. Heidlmair (AUT) v M. Ceban (GBR)
BOYS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
L. Channon (GBR) v D. Pagani (ARG)
NOT BEFORE: 1:00PM
BOYS' 14&UNDER SINGLES - SEMI-FINALS
I. Ivanov (BUL) 1 v S. Cho (KOR) 5
BOYS' 14&UNDER SINGLES - SEMI-FINALS
C. Ngounoue (USA) 3 v M. Todoran (ROU) 2
COURT 5 11:00AM
GIRLS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
M. Stojsavljevic (GBR) v V. Sekerkova (CZE)
GIRLS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
A. Ichioka (JPN) v G. Guillen (AUS)
GIRLS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
N. Okhtenberg (USA) v A. Loftus (GBR)
GIRLS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
S. Hetherington (FRA) v M. Angel (MEX)
COURT 6 11:00AM
BOYS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
J. Dembo (AUS) v K. Hance (USA)
BOYS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
M. Schtulmann (MEX) v A. Missoum (MAR)
BOYS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
P. Dietrich (BRA) v L. Lam (NMI)
BOYS' 14&U SINGLES CONSOLATION PLAY-OFFS - FIRST ROUND
M. Alqurneh (JOR) v B. Chelia (ARG)
COURT 14 11:00AM
QUAD WHEELCHAIR SINGLES - SEMI-FINALS
N. Vink (NED) 1 v H. Davidson (AUS)
QUAD WHEELCHAIR SINGLES - SEMI-FINALS
D. Wagner (USA) v S. Schroder (NED) 2
TO BE ARRANGED 1
NOT BEFORE: 4:00PM
INVITATION MIXED DOUBLES - ROUND ROBIN
T. Enqvist (SWE)/R.P. Stubbs (AUS) v T.A. Woodbridge (AUS)/C. Black (ZIM)
by ponchi101 Rybakina with the upset, and when she is handed the trophy, she will say "spasibo".
Oops.
by ashkor87 Certainly betting on Rybakina today .her poise and performance against Halep was awesome .and, like all first-time W champions, she will win one or two more...
Will not be able to watch either today or tomorrow so will rely on you guys for commentary..
by Cuckoo4Coco My prediction for tomorrow:
Ladies Final: Rybakina over Jabeur
Girls Junior Final: L.Hovde over L. Udvarde
by jazzyg I think Jabeur wins. She is the better player.
Rybakina is dangerous, but far too many people are glossing over Halep's nine double faults yesterday. It is as hard for me to rate Rybakina's level as it was to rate Halep's level when Badosa and Anisimova played stinker matches against her.
Clearly, though, Rybakina's first serve is first rate. I have not seen enough of Jabeur to know how good she is at returning big serves.
by ponchi101 I say:
Rybakina. She has more power, and a better serve.
No, wait. Jabeur. She will hit enough of those magic shots to make the difference.
But Rybakina can crush anybody's second serve, and Ons' is not that good. She will put Jabeur on the defensive.
But Jabeur is deceptively quick. She gets to a lot of shots and plays underrated defense. That will be the factor.
Except that Rybakina plays very composed tennis. When she threw away that one lousy game in the semis, she came just back.
Meaning: this will be as much as a toss up as any match since... Emma/Leylah, just three slams ago. The WTA. Parity, all the way. I just hope we get a good three setter.
by Cuckoo4Coco One thing for sure is the match is gonna be awesome.
Another thing is I have been here on this site now almost a full Grand Slam tournament and that has been awesome as well.
by ponchi101 Jabeur the one with the easy service holds. But the unforced errors are piling for both.
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 1:31 pm
Jabeur the one with the easy service holds. But the unforced errors are piling for both.
Just turned this match on after watching Liv Hovde win the Junior Girls match. Do you think the nerves are there for both of them early on because they both have never been in this situation?
by ponchi101 That. And it seems that the plan for both is to hit deep, so if you are a bit off, those land out.
About the nerves of never have been in that situation: I wonder if those ever go away. For Novak, he has never been in the situation of going for 4 straight.
That is one area of expertise that I have no idea. Managing nerves in such a match. I know I could not even walk out on court.
by ponchi101 So far, an easy set for Ons, which ended in the most positive way. She gets to start serving for the 2nd. And it did not look good for Elena.
Stats: 17 UE for Rybakina. Seeing as you only need 24 points to win a set (in theory) she gave Ons 4 games and change, just with errors. Will not work.
by Cuckoo4Coco They just showed the 18 unforced errors for Elena in the first set and that is not gonna get it done.
The 2nd set she is off to a good start though.
by ponchi101 There is no way to politely say this. Rybakina is terrible at the net. She has blown by now at least 5 easy finishing-point strokes.
by ponchi101 OTHER won.
This girl is truly composed. It is as if she just won 1st round.
by Cuckoo4Coco What a huge turnaround and comeback for Elena. She did stay very composed after 17 unforced errors in the 1st set. An awesome tournament for her as well as Ons Jabeur.
Now I cannot wit for Elena's on court speech so I can here her little kid voice.
by ponchi101 6 straight years with different winners, 4 straight different slam winners in the last 4. The USO is wide open.
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:16 pm
6 straight years with different winners, 4 straight different slam winners in the last 4. The USO is wide open.
Future Wimbledon Champions
2023 Champion- Iga Swiatek
2024 Champion- Leylah Fernandez
2025 Champion- Emma Raducanu
2026 Champion- Amanda Anisimova
2027 Champion- Marie Bouzkova
2028 Champion- Coco Gauff
2029 Champion- Me
by
ponchi101 Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:30 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:16 pm
6 straight years with different winners, 4 straight different slam winners in the last 4. The USO is wide open.
Future Wimbledon Champions
2023 Champion- Iga Swiatek -
NOT sure. Her game does not suit the surface, but sure, she is still very young.
2024 Champion- Leylah Fernandez -
If she gets stronger.
2025 Champion- Emma Raducanu -
Ditto. Right now, I wonder if she is a one slam wonder, after all.
2026 Champion- Amanda Anisimova -
She gets down so much on herself I don't know if she will collect even one slam, here or anywhere.
2027 Champion- Marie Bouzkova -
Nothing to indicate it will be.
2028 Champion- Coco Gauff -
Uhm, that weird FH grip...
2029 Champion- Me
-
Certainly, our best hope at TAT2.0 glory. But, imagine having to ask the AELTC for 25 courtesy passes, when we all show up to cheer you 
Let us know when we need to start putting in our bets
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:02 pm
Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:30 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:16 pm
6 straight years with different winners, 4 straight different slam winners in the last 4. The USO is wide open.
Future Wimbledon Champions
2023 Champion- Iga Swiatek -
NOT sure. Her game does not suit the surface, but sure, she is still very young.
2024 Champion- Leylah Fernandez -
If she gets stronger.
2025 Champion- Emma Raducanu -
Ditto. Right now, I wonder if she is a one slam wonder, after all.
2026 Champion- Amanda Anisimova -
She gets down so much on herself I don't know if she will collect even one slam, here or anywhere.
2027 Champion- Marie Bouzkova -
Nothing to indicate it will be.
2028 Champion- Coco Gauff -
Uhm, that weird FH grip...
2029 Champion- Me
-
Certainly, our best hope at TAT2.0 glory. But, imagine having to ask the AELTC for 25 courtesy passes, when we all show up to cheer you
Let us know when we need to start putting in our bets
I figure that would be the year after I win the NCAA Championships so I would be right on course.
That would be one large players box full of people cheering me on.
by
meganfernandez ponchi101 wrote:There is no way to politely say this. Rybakina is terrible at the net. She has blown by now at least 5 easy finishing-point strokes.
That’s why Jabeur was trying to bring her in. Congrats in the Other pick. Came through in the nick of time for you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by
ponchi101 Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:58 pm
...
I figure that would be the year after I win the NCAA Championships so I would be right on course.
That would be one large players box full of people cheering me on.
Cheering you? Ok, a bit, but there will be money running on you. Rue the day if you don't win!!!!!
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:56 pm
Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:58 pm
...
I figure that would be the year after I win the NCAA Championships so I would be right on course.
That would be one large players box full of people cheering me on.
Cheering you? Ok, a bit, but there will be money running on you. Rue the day if you don't win!!!!!
Would that even be allowed? Friends who bet money in the friends box at Wimbledon? Can you imagine the scandal?
by
Cuckoo4Coco ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:23 pm
A true class act.
by
ponchi101 Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:22 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:56 pm
Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:58 pm
...
I figure that would be the year after I win the NCAA Championships so I would be right on course.
That would be one large players box full of people cheering me on.
Cheering you? Ok, a bit, but there will be money running on you. Rue the day if you don't win!!!!!
Would that even be allowed? Friends who bet money in the friends box at Wimbledon?
Can you imagine the scandal?
I can imagine the royalties for your autobio: "One flew over the Cuckoo4Coco's nest"
by
JTContinental Rybakina is only 23--we've been talking about her potential for so long I thought she was closer to 30
Congrats to Elena; I have to say that I never thought she'd get it together mentally to pull off a grand slam, and she proved me wrong.
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 8:05 pm
Cuckoo4Coco wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:22 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:56 pm
Cheering you? Ok, a bit, but there will be money running on you. Rue the day if you don't win!!!!!
Would that even be allowed? Friends who bet money in the friends box at Wimbledon?
Can you imagine the scandal?
I can imagine the royalties for your autobio: "One flew over the Cuckoo4Coco's nest"
I know many many people bet on professional sports games, but when it comes to betting on an individual player wow I would think that would have to make that person a nervous wreck. Like a tennis player in a huge match or a boxer. I guess they probably don't even think about it at all because they are just focused on winning the championship or title or whatever, but it is just bizarre to me.
I have never seen the thrill of betting money for tennis or any sporting event. I guess I really could have conned a lot of people out of their money at the local tennis courts being a little girl and playing that they could beat me and then turn it completely around and slaughter them. I just don't know if I could do that.
by JTContinental Another note: not having any ranking points at this event this year is going to make a huge impact for a bunch of players who went deep into a slam
by Deuce ^ ... and who very well may not have gone as deep if the banned players had been playing.
We'll never know what would have happened, but there were definitely some significant players missing.
by Deuce It's nice to see Jabeur being so gracious and appreciative in defeat... but I'd have liked to see more of a degree of disappointment, sadness, even anger, rather than happiness...
I love watching her, and I think she's great for the game, but perhaps that's one thing that is holding her back - she's just too nice and too happy, and doesn't have enough of a 'killer instinct'.
by
Cuckoo4Coco Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:46 pm
^ ... and who very well may not have gone as deep if the banned players had been playing.
We'll never know what would have happened, but there were definitely some significant players missing.
The way I think about the banned players is would it have changed the way that the players in the draw played? No it wouldn't have. Jabeur & Rybakina still would have had outstanding tournaments and yeah maybe they would have come up against a Russian player or they may not have, but the way they were playing tennis in this tournament was pretty darn solid so they really earned in my opinion where they got to.
The same thing can be said on the men's side and mostly towards Nick Kyrgios. As much as I do not like his antics he is playing one heck of a tournament and even if the Russian players were in the tournament who is to say that he wouldn't have taken them down. He has played some really impressive tennis other than his antics. As for Djokovic pretty much everyone expected him to be here anyway so that doesn't make any difference anyway.
by ti-amie I think Taylor Fritz had the right reaction in his quarterfinal loss. He was angry and disappointed in himself. He still managed to be polite and gracious. Different personalities.
by Deuce I think both the men's and women's draws would have played out significantly differently if the banned players would have played.
Even if none of the players who surprised by going deep would have played one of the banned players directly, there would have been a difference in the way the draws played out.
The seedings would have been different, for one, which would have put a different spin on the entire draw... etc., etc.
by
Cuckoo4Coco Deuce wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:37 pm
I think both the men's and women's draws would have played out significantly differently if the banned players would have played.
Even if none of the players who surprised by going deep would have played one of the banned players directly, there would have been a difference in the way the draws played out.
The seedings would have been different, for one, which would have put a different spin on the entire draw... etc., etc.
That is true, but you have to agree that Nick Kyrgios other than his crazy antics has been playing lights out tennis and would have been tough to beat by anyone who came up against him in the draw. Novak is Novak and just seems to win. I do think that Medvedev would have given any of these two finalists a huge challenge for sure.
On the ladies side coming into this everyone was so high on Iga and it seems like on the ladies side of things no matter if the banned players were in the draw or out there still would have been a ton of upsets. Ons Jabeur until the final played an awesome tournament and Elena did as well although she relied a lot on her hard hitting strokes and serve to get her through. Things might of turned out differently for her along the way, but in the final today she adjusted from making 17 unforced errors and cut down of them significantly which pretty much won her the match.
So it is hard to say if the outcomes of tomorrow's men's final would be different or the ladies final and champion would have been different. I do know it is a shame these players were not allowed to participate though.
by mick1303 One thing is for sure in my mind: the ban on Russians may or may not affected the outcome of Wimbledon regarding winners, so whether or not this Wimbledon shall be asterisked will be open for debates for years to come. But the ban on Djokovic in Oz Open affected the outcome undeniably. And possibly crippled him mentally to the degree that he could not defend his Roland Garros. Instead of one ahead of Nadal he found himself one behind after January. This was the massive blow to the motivation.
by ponchi101 I can't recall anybody here denying that. I do believe that, at the level of game he has, and with his incredible success there, yes, you are right. Most likely he would have won it.
The point that some of us try to articulate is this. Australian immigration policies, at the time, mandated people to be vaccinated for C19. Our point is: the person that stopped Djokovic from entering Australia WAS HIMSELF; he did this to himself. He could have easily taken his doses in Nov-Dec 2021, and play the tournament in January.
And if he does not get vaccinated before the USO, it seems he won't be able to go there, and will lose the entire N. American circuit because (I believe) he won't be allowed to enter Canada either.
What we say is: a country has laws. I can't enter Costa Rica (for example) without a yellow fever shot. If you are an anti-vaxxer, Costa Rica is off-limits to you, regardless of who you are. The same for any African nation you go to; YF vaccination is mandatory. So his foolish, unscientific position is what did this to him. Nothing else.
And, sincerely, if he was affected so much by that episode that 5 months later he was still brooding, how come he won Rome?
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 pm
I can't recall anybody here denying that. I do believe that, at the level of game he has, and with his incredible success there, yes, you are right. Most likely he would have won it.
The point that some of us try to articulate is this. Australian immigration policies, at the time, mandated people to be vaccinated for C19. Our point is: the person that stopped Djokovic from entering Australia WAS HIMSELF; he did this to himself. He could have easily taken his doses in Nov-Dec 2021, and play the tournament in January.
And if he does not get vaccinated before the USO, it seems he won't be able to go there, and will lose the entire N. American circuit because (I believe) he won't be allowed to enter Canada either.
What we say is: a country has laws. I can't enter Costa Rica (for example) without a yellow fever shot. If you are an anti-vaxxer, Costa Rica is off-limits to you, regardless of who you are. The same for any African nation you go to; YF vaccination is mandatory. So his foolish, unscientific position is what did this to him. Nothing else.
And, sincerely,
if he was affected so much by that episode that 5 months later he was still brooding, how come he won Rome?
Competitive margins at the top are very small. Maybe Rome draw opened up for him to a degree that he didn't have to dig deep mentally. But in Paris against Nadal - he had to... Pure speculation on my part, of course.
by ponchi101 Oh, of course. It is not as if we are talking to him.
But, it is not as if losing to Rafa was an oddity at RG. We know the records, and the match was very close until the 4th set.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 pm
I can't recall anybody here denying that. I do believe that, at the level of game he has, and with his incredible success there, yes, you are right. Most likely he would have won it.
The point that some of us try to articulate is this. Australian immigration policies, at the time, mandated people to be vaccinated for C19. Our point is: the person that stopped Djokovic from entering Australia WAS HIMSELF; he did this to himself. He could have easily taken his doses in Nov-Dec 2021, and play the tournament in January.
And if he does not get vaccinated before the USO, it seems he won't be able to go there, and will lose the entire N. American circuit because (I believe) he won't be allowed to enter Canada either.
What we say is: a country has laws. I can't enter Costa Rica (for example) without a yellow fever shot. If you are an anti-vaxxer, Costa Rica is off-limits to you, regardless of who you are. The same for any African nation you go to; YF vaccination is mandatory. So his foolish, unscientific position is what did this to him. Nothing else.
And, sincerely, if he was affected so much by that episode that 5 months later he was still brooding, how come he won Rome?
You know what is the deal with Covid-19 in Ukraine? It is pretty much forgotten. This is what happens with made up danger in face of real undeniable danger. So I can't take seriously all those COVID-driven restriction. Yellow fever - yes, this is legitimate. COVID - no. Tinkering with statistics in order to get extra-funding. Eventually just degrades to what it really is - common cold.
by ponchi101 Mick. You know, perfectly well, that we have been paying attention to the situation in Ukraine, and, indeed as you say, there is no comparison. Your country, and all of its inhabitants (which, of course, includes you) are facing a situation that for almost the entire rest of the world is hard to envision, much less understand at the level that you do.
But our point is this: we are not talking about the importance of C19. Is it a hoax, is it real, is it a cold, is it flying cancer, that is not what we are saying. We are saying that Australia, as a country, has the right to decide its policies for entry. All countries do. For example: let's forget about C19. I CANNOT enter the UK without a Visa, simply because I am Venezuelan. For us, they demand a Visa. And if I disagree, fine, but I cannot get on a train in Calais, get off in Dober, simply because I feel like it and, if the British authorities find me, tell them to KMA, because I do not agree with their traveling policies.
And Australia demanded people to be vaccinated, and he was not. And the USA does the same, so, last time I went, I needed MY VISA ($55 last year) AND proof of vaccination.
That is what we are saying.
by
Deuce mick1303 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 8:01 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 pm
I can't recall anybody here denying that. I do believe that, at the level of game he has, and with his incredible success there, yes, you are right. Most likely he would have won it.
The point that some of us try to articulate is this. Australian immigration policies, at the time, mandated people to be vaccinated for C19. Our point is: the person that stopped Djokovic from entering Australia WAS HIMSELF; he did this to himself. He could have easily taken his doses in Nov-Dec 2021, and play the tournament in January.
And if he does not get vaccinated before the USO, it seems he won't be able to go there, and will lose the entire N. American circuit because (I believe) he won't be allowed to enter Canada either.
What we say is: a country has laws. I can't enter Costa Rica (for example) without a yellow fever shot. If you are an anti-vaxxer, Costa Rica is off-limits to you, regardless of who you are. The same for any African nation you go to; YF vaccination is mandatory. So his foolish, unscientific position is what did this to him. Nothing else.
And, sincerely, if he was affected so much by that episode that 5 months later he was still brooding, how come he won Rome?
You know what is the deal with Covid-19 in Ukraine? It is pretty much forgotten. This is what happens with made up danger in face of real undeniable danger. So I can't take seriously all those COVID-driven restriction. Yellow fever - yes, this is legitimate. COVID - no. Tinkering with statistics in order to get extra-funding. Eventually just degrades to what it really is - common cold.
Mick - you're wrong about COVID.
Very wrong. And it's insulting to the people who have died from COVID, and the loved ones they've left behind.
I sympathize very much with your situation in Ukraine - and I don't pretend to know how it feels to go through that. But it's no excuse for denying scientific fact.
For you to be right, there would have to be a successful conspiracy involving millions of medical experts, millions of media reporters, and millions of politicians all over the world.
And there is absolutely
no way that it would be possible that that many people from those different fields could ever agree on
anything together and at the same time, let alone something that is not true.
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:13 pm
Mick. You know, perfectly well, that we have been paying attention to the situation in Ukraine, and, indeed as you say, there is no comparison. Your country, and all of its inhabitants (which, of course, includes you) are facing a situation that for almost the entire rest of the world is hard to envision, much less understand at the level that you do.
But our point is this: we are not talking about the
importance of C19. Is it a hoax, is it real, is it a cold, is it flying cancer, that is not what we are saying. We are saying that Australia, as a country, has the right to decide its policies for entry. All countries do. For example: let's forget about C19. I CANNOT enter the UK without a Visa, simply because I am Venezuelan. For us, they demand a Visa. And if I disagree, fine, but I cannot get on a train in Calais, get off in Dober, simply because I feel like it and, if the British authorities find me, tell them to KMA, because I do not agree with their traveling policies.
And Australia demanded people to be vaccinated, and he was not. And the USA does the same, so, last time I went, I needed MY VISA ($55 last year) AND proof of vaccination.
That is what we are saying.
Djokovic, as you remember, was promised by Australian tennis federation that he will get medical exemption and on this ground will enter the country. But some reporters decided to milk this situation and created "public outcry", which some politicians then in turn decided to milk and denied him the entry. Australians can do whatever they pleased with their entry policy. But if it differs significantly from the majority of other countries, then they lose the right to call their championship "open".
by
mick1303 Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:44 am
mick1303 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 8:01 pm
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:39 pm
I can't recall anybody here denying that. I do believe that, at the level of game he has, and with his incredible success there, yes, you are right. Most likely he would have won it.
The point that some of us try to articulate is this. Australian immigration policies, at the time, mandated people to be vaccinated for C19. Our point is: the person that stopped Djokovic from entering Australia WAS HIMSELF; he did this to himself. He could have easily taken his doses in Nov-Dec 2021, and play the tournament in January.
And if he does not get vaccinated before the USO, it seems he won't be able to go there, and will lose the entire N. American circuit because (I believe) he won't be allowed to enter Canada either.
What we say is: a country has laws. I can't enter Costa Rica (for example) without a yellow fever shot. If you are an anti-vaxxer, Costa Rica is off-limits to you, regardless of who you are. The same for any African nation you go to; YF vaccination is mandatory. So his foolish, unscientific position is what did this to him. Nothing else.
And, sincerely, if he was affected so much by that episode that 5 months later he was still brooding, how come he won Rome?
You know what is the deal with Covid-19 in Ukraine? It is pretty much forgotten. This is what happens with made up danger in face of real undeniable danger. So I can't take seriously all those COVID-driven restriction. Yellow fever - yes, this is legitimate. COVID - no. Tinkering with statistics in order to get extra-funding. Eventually just degrades to what it really is - common cold.
Mick - you're wrong about COVID.
Very wrong. And it's insulting to the people who have died from COVID, and the loved ones they've left behind.
I sympathize very much with your situation in Ukraine - and I don't pretend to know how it feels to go through that. But it's no excuse for denying scientific fact.
For you to be right, there would have to be a successful conspiracy involving millions of medical experts, millions of media reporters, and millions of politicians all over the world.
And there is absolutely
no way that it would be possible that that many people from those different fields could ever agree on
anything together and at the same time, let alone something that is not true.
Regarding the people who died from Covid: each death is a tragedy for the loved ones. But if you look closely, you will find out that Covid statistics were carefully tinkered with. Many people who died had other serious conditions. And people who have serious conditions can get complications if contracting another illness on top of already compromised state. Common cold or any other virus could be that another illness. It happened, happens and will continue to happen unfortunately.
And you also know what will get all those different people to agree on something? Getting paid. All conspiracies boil down to this.
by Deuce As I said - it's fundamentally - and logistically - impossible to get that many people to all agree to lie to the world in the exact same way at the same time.
It has never happened in the history of mankind, and it never will.
Because it's absolutely impossible.
by
mick1303 Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 3:53 am
As I said - it's fundamentally - and logistically - impossible to get that many people to all agree to lie to the world in the exact same way at the same time.
It has never happened in the history of mankind, and it never will.
Because it's absolutely impossible.
I don’t think that an agreement on the necessity of these measures was that unilateral as you’re describing.
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 3:35 am
...
Djokovic, as you remember, was promised by Australian tennis federation that he will get medical exemption and on this ground will enter the country. But some reporters decided to milk this situation and created "public outcry", which some politicians then in turn decided to milk and denied him the entry. Australians can do whatever they pleased with their entry policy. But if it differs significantly from the majority of other countries, then they lose the right to call their championship "open".
During that discussion, it was basically agreed that the way the Aussie Open/Australian Tennis/Australian government handled the situation was very poor. There was no disagreement on that.
About Australia's C19 policy being different from other countries: It is the same as in (for example) the USA, Canada, ALL S. American countries, and many more. Mandatory vaccination is very much the norm in many countries.
And about being "Open". A tennis tournament is not above country laws. Again, as an example. Any Venezuelan player that would qualify and wanted to play Wimbledon would still need a UK Visa. Maybe the LTA could provide a letter for his/her application to be considered in a better way ("We guarantee that this person indeed plans to compete at The Championships"), but there have been enough cases during the history of the sport in which a player has missed a tournament due to a visa problem.
What is your opinion then of the USO, IF the US Govt does not allow him entry?
by
mick1303 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:54 pm
mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 3:35 am
...
Djokovic, as you remember, was promised by Australian tennis federation that he will get medical exemption and on this ground will enter the country. But some reporters decided to milk this situation and created "public outcry", which some politicians then in turn decided to milk and denied him the entry. Australians can do whatever they pleased with their entry policy. But if it differs significantly from the majority of other countries, then they lose the right to call their championship "open".
During that discussion, it was basically agreed that the way the Aussie Open/Australian Tennis/Australian government handled the situation was very poor. There was no disagreement on that.
About Australia's C19 policy being different from other countries: It is the same as in (for example) the USA, Canada, ALL S. American countries, and many more. Mandatory vaccination is very much the norm in many countries.
And about being "Open". A tennis tournament is not above country laws. Again, as an example. Any Venezuelan player that would qualify and wanted to play Wimbledon would still need a UK Visa. Maybe the LTA could provide a letter for his/her application to be considered in a better way ("We guarantee that this person indeed plans to compete at The Championships"), but there have been enough cases during the history of the sport in which a player has missed a tournament due to a visa problem.
What is your opinion then of the USO, IF the US Govt does not allow him entry?
Even if US follows the suit, it was Australians who created a precedent. Slams known to stick together, so it is not impossible that US Open follows. But while I would consider them at fault as well, they would not be the ones who violated sporting principles first.
BTW, do you remember player missing a slam due to visa problem? I don't.
by
ponchi101 mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:11 pm
...
Even if US follows the suit, it was Australians who created a precedent. Slams known to stick together, so it is not impossible that US Open follows. But while I would consider them at fault as well, they would not be the ones who violated sporting principles first.
BTW, do you remember player missing a slam due to visa problem? I don't.
Very rare, but one Venezuelan player once missed the USO due to am expired visa (the qualies). Because Venezuela is a country with an extra-stupid government, we cannot have two passports, so this player was playing in S. America and, when he finally got back home in Caracas, it was too late to ask for a visa in time.
Bureaucracy, and Venezuela was mostly to blame, but it is one case I can recall.
by
Cuckoo4Coco ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:18 pm
mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:11 pm
...
Even if US follows the suit, it was Australians who created a precedent. Slams known to stick together, so it is not impossible that US Open follows. But while I would consider them at fault as well, they would not be the ones who violated sporting principles first.
BTW, do you remember player missing a slam due to visa problem? I don't.
Very rare, but one Venezuelan player once missed the USO due to am expired visa (the qualies). Because Venezuela is a country with an extra-stupid government, we cannot have two passports, so this player was playing in S. America and, when he finally got back home in Caracas, it was too late to ask for a visa in time.
Bureaucracy, and Venezuela was mostly to blame, but it is one case I can recall.
I think that Visa problems would happen more often in countries such as Venezuela or other countries that the Government would hold up the process. I wouldn't think it has happened too often with players from the United States, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, or Great Britain.
by ponchi101 Passports are not universally accepted around the world, in the sense that some nationalities get entry without a visa. The UK, Japan, USA, and most European countries can travel around the world without a visa. I believe the Japanese passport is the best, with over 16o countries accepting entry with no visa.
The USA imposes visas for most S. American countries. Europe is divided, with the Schengen area separated from the British isles, which have a different immigration regime. Venezuela has become a pariah state and we get requested visas from more and more countries, even within the L. American community.
by
Deuce mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:19 pm
Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 3:53 am
As I said - it's fundamentally - and logistically - impossible to get that many people to all agree to lie to the world in the exact same way at the same time.
It has never happened in the history of mankind, and it never will.
Because it's absolutely impossible.
I don’t think that an agreement on the necessity of these measures was that unilateral as you’re describing.
The facts say otherwise.
In fact, they SCREAM otherwise...