# The French Open



## Guest (Oct 6, 2020)

We have been keeping a close eye on this wonderful tournament, albeit without a sports service. Thiem has just been defeated in a 5 hour contest with Schwartzman; a real upset, though Thiem was clearly exhausted from back-to-back grand slams. You could tell from the first set and commentators remarked on his tiredness. There have been some upsets and it will be interesting to see Schwartzman go head to head with Nadal or Djokovic.

Once again I remain extremely angry at the unequal distribution of prize-money for grand slams. Women play 'Toy Tennis' (with one win just taking 68 minutes) compared to *up to 5 hours for men*. Women have really bullied the tennis world over this one and I'm wondering why something hasn't said or done something about this insulting disparity. If you divided the hours on the court between men and women you'd see the men playing for a much lower hourly rate. Unacceptable.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Hm... I agree about the same pay being actually unjust towards men.
Not only do they play for longer, but they also attract much larger audience, and therefore create more wealth.

However, I'm quite sure they compensate it with sponsorships, so I think they earn much more then women off court.

Please don't get me wrong: I'm all for equal pay, but for the same work... not when there's a huge difference in the amount of work and level of competition.

And... Go Djokovic!


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> Hm... I agree about the same pay being actually unjust towards men.
> Not only do they play for longer, but they also attract much larger audience, and therefore create more wealth.
> 
> However, I'm quite sure they compensate it with sponsorships, so I think they earn much more then women off court.
> ...


Compensation shouldn't be part of the same sport. The men need to be paid for the much more demanding games they play in slams. The Djokovic game just ended with him going to another gruelling 5 sets, but winning. I don't watch womens' tennis at all anymore as I don't regard it as being in the same league as mens' tennis in the grand slams. No problems when everybody is playing best of 3 - no problem at all - but the grand slams are a rip off for men and it's unacceptable.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

The men play toy tennis too these days. The game has been going downhill ever since they introduced the tie break.

Mischievously my suggestion for the pay question is that they introduce an "Open" competition which is open to men and women to join, and continue to have a competition for women. It would then seem reasonable for the open version to have greater prize money, as everyone can participate. I would favour the open version being over 5 sets (and with no tie breaks!).

On the French, Djokovic versus Nadal. All I want in tennis these days is for anyone to beat either of these, so that they don't surpass Federer in grand slams. That's not going well.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Christabel said:


> Compensation shouldn't be part of the same sport. The men need to be paid for the much more demanding games they play in slams. The Djokovic game just ended with him going to another gruelling 5 sets, but winning. I don't watch womens' tennis at all anymore as I don't regard it as being in the same league as mens' tennis in the grand slams. No problems when everybody is playing best of 3 - no problem at all - but the grand slams are a rip off for men and it's unacceptable.


On this we agree. Why can't the women play 5 sets if they want equal pay? If the answer is that it isn't physically realistic then the prize money should reflect the difference. Some womens' 2 set grand slam finals have been ridiculously short.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

I had never heard of this Iga Swiatek girl..... Good on her, first Pole to win a Grand Slam, I believe?

Her dad was a very decent oarsman back in his day, before Poland got world-beating in Double and Quad Sculls.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> On this we agree. Why can't the women play 5 sets if they want equal pay? If the answer is that it isn't physically realistic then the prize money should reflect the difference. Some womens' 2 set grand slam finals have been ridiculously short.


It infuriates me, to tell truth. It was the lobbying and bullying of female tennis players that brought this about. Only within the last 36 hours Serena Williams has accused the tennis world of not paying her enough and not 'valuing' her enough:

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/serena-...paid-undervalued-british-vogue-044214199.html

A lot of women have become cry-bullies; well, who'd have thought???!!!


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

On the rare occasions I watch tennis (normally Wimbledon), I often wish they'd show more of the play on eye level from behind the players. On the few occasions they do, you get a very different and involving perspective I find, but clearly editors are not of the same opinion, as such shots only usually last for a couple of seconds.

Apologies for that brief rant, opportunities are rare .. I watched some highlights on youtube of this match because of the rarity value of the win, both unknown to me, but both seem (as ever) incredibly good at fearlessly hitting tennis balls where they will. 
Have no idea of what sort of journey she's had to the final, but it seems an impressive feat that will presumably take some time to sink in. Though all these sporting events seem somewhat surreal at the moment anyway.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2020)

Nadal gave Djokovic a thorough thrashing for the title yesterday!! That man is incredible. One of my sons (who works in Occupational Health and Safety in the resources industry in Western Australia) observed, "how is it that his serving arm socket is even still intact after the punishment it gets?". Good question. My son also observed that in not too many more decades Nadal will have huge troubles with arthritis and associated disorders. I guess he thinks that's a price worth paying!!


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Christabel said:


> Compensation shouldn't be part of the same sport. The men need to be paid for the much more demanding games they play in slams. The Djokovic game just ended with him going to another gruelling 5 sets, but winning. I don't watch womens' tennis at all anymore as I don't regard it as being in the same league as mens' tennis in the grand slams. No problems when everybody is playing best of 3 - no problem at all - but the grand slams are a rip off for men and it's unacceptable.


I think the compensation level was set decades ago and I think Billie Jean King had a lot to do with it. It seems to have happened in the era when she played Bobby Riggs in that bitter exhibition game to prove that a woman could beat a man. OK, a woman in her prime against an over-the-hill man.

I remember the parity in pay being justified as, women put on as good a show as men do, so why not get equal pay. You don't seem to agree with this, which is your right.

I question why the men's game has to go best of 5 sets while the women's is best of 3 in majors -- in some tournaments the men also play best of 3. There's no good reason for the difference, women have the stamina. I think it's that many people don't want to watch women play for more than 3 sets. The thing is, best of 3 can go by far too quickly but best of 5 can be excruciatingly long and unbearable. You never know how a tennis match is going to be as far as entertainment goes.

Women in tennis are lucky. Once equal pay with men was set, it was never undone and certainly won't be in today's progressive times. Look at the poor WNBA, women's professional basketball. These players earn probably 1/10th of what the men in the NBA do, if I'm not mistaken. Many women in the WNBA travel to Europe and play in the off season to supplement their income.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

The women don't believe in equal pay at all. You know how I know? I looked up how much the WTA pay its players for tournaments that are similar sized to the ones the men play, and the men's tour always pays more. Only when there are joint events do the women get equal pay, because loudly shaming the blokes caught on.

But if you look at places like Auckland, for example, the women played there from 6-12 January, and the men played from 13-18 January, both events are of equal size, (an International WTA event being the same size as a Men's 250 tournament), but the prize money differed: the total financial commitment from the WTA was $251,750, and the ATP financial commitment was $610,010.

This kind of discrepancy can be found in all the tier levels of both games. Look at Dubai, a women's Premier event, and a men's 500. Both the same level - the men's financial commitment is $2,950,420, and the women's is $2,643,670.

If the women believed in equal pay, surely their tour would pay equal pay? They don't, because they don't generate the same income. But we never see them called on this.

Rafa was immense today, he slaughtered Djokovic. It was one of the greatest displays I've ever seen, and it couldn't happen to a nicer chap!

:tiphat:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Eclectic Al said:


> The men play toy tennis too these days. The game has been going downhill ever since they introduced the tie break.
> 
> Mischievously my suggestion for the pay question is that they introduce an "Open" competition which is open to men and women to join, and continue to have a competition for women. It would then seem reasonable for the open version to have greater prize money, as everyone can participate. I would favour the open version being over 5 sets (and with no tie breaks!).
> 
> On the French, Djokovic versus Nadal. All I want in tennis these days is for anyone to beat either of these, so that they don't surpass Federer in grand slams. That's not going well.


It was Catch-22 for Federer fans today, brother - I think Rafa will overtake him, but Djoker will fall short...


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Kieran said:


> The women don't believe in equal pay at all. You know how I know? I looked up how much the WTA pay its players for tournaments that are similar sized to the ones the men play, and the men's tour always pays more. Only when there are joint events do the women get equal pay, because loudly shaming the blokes caught on.
> 
> But if you look at places like Auckland, for example, the women played there from 6-12 January, and the men played from 13-18 January, both events are of equal size, (an International WTA event being the same size as a Men's 250 tournament), but the prize money differed: the total financial commitment from the WTA was $251,750, and the ATP financial commitment was $610,010.
> 
> ...


You're right about women's pay not being equal to men's across all tournaments. It is a function of what they earn in revenue, I'm sure. Still a heck of a lot closer to the men's pay than that of their professional basketball counterparts. WNBA is financed by the men's game and probably never will be a big moneymaker on its own in the U.S. But the tickets are less expensive and they have their fans.

Rafa is psychologically the strongest player I have ever seen. It's almost impossible to get him discouraged. He just keeps coming. He is the King of Clay and played exceptionally well today, made very few errors. I think that level of play rattled Djokovic. He wasn't bad except mentally and made some bad decisions. He was unable to fire himself up and the small crowd was initially too stunned to make much encouraging noise. The last set was an improvement, I would have liked to have seen more tennis if it was going to be more like that set. I don't enjoy slaughters. Both did some astonishing things, though.

Did you see the Djoker debacle at the U.S. Open? His hitting the lineswoman in the throat with a careless swipe of the ball?


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2020)

Open Book said:


> I think the compensation level was set decades ago and I think Billie Jean King had a lot to do with it. It seems to have happened in the era when she played Bobby Riggs in that bitter exhibition game to prove that a woman could beat a man. OK, a woman in her prime against an over-the-hill man.
> 
> I remember the parity in pay being justified as, women put on as good a show as men do, so why not get equal pay. You don't seem to agree with this, which is your right.
> 
> ...


I have no quarrel with everybody playing best of three. Men are not getting 'equal pay'. Playing hours longer than the fair sex is anything but equal when both get the same prize-money. There simply isn't a sustainable argument to keep this charade going.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2020)

Kieran said:


> The women don't believe in equal pay at all. You know how I know? I looked up how much the WTA pay its players for tournaments that are similar sized to the ones the men play, and the men's tour always pays more. Only when there are joint events do the women get equal pay, because loudly shaming the blokes caught on.
> 
> But if you look at places like Auckland, for example, the women played there from 6-12 January, and the men played from 13-18 January, both events are of equal size, (an International WTA event being the same size as a Men's 250 tournament), but the prize money differed: the total financial commitment from the WTA was $251,750, and the ATP financial commitment was $610,010.
> 
> ...


Rafa is amazing. And I don't know about those other tournaments you mention, only the majors where men are forced to endure Best of 5. It's unacceptable and it isn't relevant what they do on other tours. The men do not play 'toy tennis'; that is the girls' game in the majors.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2020)

Open Book said:


> You're right about women's pay not being equal to men's across all tournaments. It is a function of what they earn in revenue, I'm sure. Still a heck of a lot closer to the men's pay than that of their professional basketball counterparts. WNBA is financed by the men's game and probably never will be a big moneymaker on its own in the U.S. But the tickets are less expensive and they have their fans.
> 
> Rafa is psychologically the strongest player I have ever seen. It's almost impossible to get him discouraged. He just keeps coming. He is the King of Clay and played exceptionally well today, made very few errors. I think that level of play rattled Djokovic. He wasn't bad except mentally and made some bad decisions. He was unable to fire himself up and the small crowd was initially too stunned to make much encouraging noise. The last set was an improvement, I would have liked to have seen more tennis if it was going to be more like that set. I don't enjoy slaughters. Both did some astonishing things, though.
> 
> Did you see the Djoker debacle at the U.S. Open? His hitting the lineswoman in the throat with a careless swipe of the ball?


Next time I see Rafa or Djokovic or Thiem etc. incredibly exhausted and heroic after 4 or 5 gruelling hours in the Australian heat playing for the same prize money as women I'll say "it's the revenue they raise".


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2020)

Open Book said:


> You're right about women's pay not being equal to men's across all tournaments. It is a function of what they earn in revenue, I'm sure. Still a heck of a lot closer to the men's pay than that of their professional basketball counterparts. WNBA is financed by the men's game and probably never will be a big moneymaker on its own in the U.S. But the tickets are less expensive and they have their fans.
> 
> Rafa is psychologically the strongest player I have ever seen. It's almost impossible to get him discouraged. He just keeps coming. He is the King of Clay and played exceptionally well today, made very few errors. I think that level of play rattled Djokovic. He wasn't bad except mentally and made some bad decisions. He was unable to fire himself up and the small crowd was initially too stunned to make much encouraging noise. The last set was an improvement, I would have liked to have seen more tennis if it was going to be more like that set. I don't enjoy slaughters. Both did some astonishing things, though.
> 
> Did you see the Djoker debacle at the U.S. Open? His hitting the lineswoman in the throat with a careless swipe of the ball?


Djokovic isn't popular on the circuits. The other players seem to have warm and friendly relationships with each other. Can't speak about the women as they don't interest me.

If I'm sitting in the stands in January at the Australian Open in Melbourne and the boys are battling on in 42 degree heat towards the fifth set I'll call out, "come on boys; chin up; it's for the revenue"!


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Kieran said:


> It was Catch-22 for Federer fans today, brother - I think Rafa will overtake him, but Djoker will fall short...


Probably right, but Roger is still the best of all time at tennis. (Rafa is just best a clay court tennis, which is a different sport, and has only won Wimbledon once and the US twice - so far .) Meanwhile, both Roger and Novak have only won the French once (but that's because of Rafa). Otherwise they have a good spread of tournaments.

If you take their most successful of the 4 grand slam tournaments away from them then Roger drops from 20 to 12, Novak drops from 17 to 9 and Rafa drops from 20 to 7.

Of course, for spectators tennis is as much as anything an aesthetic game, and the best male player ever is Roger because of how he plays the game. At this point (in TC style), I have say add "in my opinion".

For similar reasons, the best female player of all time is Steffi Graf (for women), as Serena's style is a bit one-dimensional for me (- I prefer Venus from those sisters). I do wonder though if Martina Hingis might not have become the best of all time if her ankles (and then hip) had not packed in. I have to caveat these remarks, though, because I can't remember much of Margaret Court's style of play (and also because much of her career was before the open era). In addition, I expect Margaret Court's record to be cancelled soon, and all her titles to be redistributed to those who came second - but that's another story.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Christabel said:


> Rafa is amazing. And I don't know about those other tournaments you mention, only the majors where men are forced to endure Best of 5. It's unacceptable and it isn't relevant what they do on other tours. The men do not play 'toy tennis'; that is the girls' game in the majors.


Oh, I wouldn't abandon best of five for the men. It's what separates the men from the boys (and the girls). Nobody would want to sit through too many five set women matches - in fact, it would expose their game to ridicule - but it's great in the men's game.

Remember last years US Open final, Nadal was coasting against Medvedev, next thing we're in the dark territory of a fifth, after medvedev fought back? Five set tennis is the ultimate proof of worth, and we've seen it so often, a match switch momentum in the third..


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Kieran said:


> Oh, I wouldn't abandon best of five for the men. It's what separates the men from the boys (and the girls). Nobody would want to sit through too many five set women matches - in fact, it would expose their game to ridicule - but it's great in the men's game.
> 
> Remember last years US Open final, Nadal was coasting against Medvedev, next thing we're in the dark territory of a fifth, after medvedev fought back? Five set tennis is the ultimate proof of worth, and we've seen it so often, a match switch momentum in the third..


Yes. Even yesterday, if Novak had just managed to take the 3rd set (and it was pretty close), then the overall result would have been very much in the balance.

One of the glories of tennis is the scoring system. If a game is very one sided then it is over in 3 quick sets, and you only get long 5 setters if it is close (and hence, usually, exciting). You thus get exciting long games, and impressively one-sided short games. However, if you play best of 3 then too much is dependent on how quick out of the blocks one player is. The match can be over before it has really got going.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Eclectic Al said:


> Probably right, but Roger is still the best of all time at tennis. (Rafa is just best a clay court tennis, which is a different sport, and has only won Wimbledon once and the US twice - so far .) Meanwhile, both Roger and Novak have only won the French once (but that's because of Rafa). Otherwise they have a good spread of tournaments.
> 
> If you take their most successful of the 4 grand slam tournaments away from them then Roger drops from 20 to 12, Novak drops from 17 to 9 and Rafa drops from 20 to 7.
> 
> ...


Rafa has 2 Wimbledon's and 4 US Opens, and an Australian open. Roger has 11 slams on hard courts, Novak has 11 slams on hard courts, and Rafa has 13 on clay. Imagine if there were two slams on clay, and old traditional tennis surface, and only one on hards?

It's pointless to try jiggle the figures so that 20 for one player is somehow not really 20. Rafa has only played 60 slams to get his 20 - that's 2 fewer than Novak, and 12 fewer than Roger played when he won his last one.

And Rafa at Roland Garros transcends tennis and becomes only comparable with the greatest achievements in all sports, not just tennis. Tennis has seen nothing so incredible from any of its greatest players...


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Kieran said:


> Imagine if there were two slams on clay, and old traditional tennis surface, and only one on hards?
> .


Oh please no!  I can just about cope with one grand slam tournament on clay (for variety), but more than one, no.

There was a time when Wimbledon was too dominated by serve-volley tennis, but that's got a pretty good balance now (changes to balls or the grass or what? - I'm no expert), and the US and Australian are fine, too. The problem with the French is that there is not enough payback for real variety in play. Ultimately you hit the ball very hard from the back of the court, and (in October) try a drop shot if the opponent has drifted too far back (because you can't think what else to do).

Hence, I think the clay game deserves its place so that you can see who is best at clubbing the ball from the back of the court (which is Rafa), but please only once a year. :lol:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Eclectic Al said:


> Oh please no!  I can just about cope with one grand slam tournament on clay (for variety), but more than one, no.
> 
> There was a time when Wimbledon was too dominated by serve-volley tennis, but that's got a pretty good balance now (changes to balls or the grass or what? - I'm no expert), and the US and Australian are fine, too. The problem with the French is that there is not enough payback for real variety in play. Ultimately you hit the ball very hard from the back of the court, and (in October) try a drop shot if the opponent has drifted too far back (because you can't think what else to do).
> 
> Hence, I think the clay game deserves its place so that you can see who is best at clubbing the ball from the back of the court (which is Rafa), but please only once a year. :lol:


Clay traditionally has been the toughest test in tennis because it rewards patience and strategy, but nowadays clay has speeded up so it plays a bit like hards, but requires better movement and guile. If you watch the angles they got yesterday, and the all court game, you'll see how clay is the superior surface in so many ways, because there's fewer cheap points off serve.

All the surfaces have their virtues, but Rafa has won enough away from clay that he can't be reduced to just that surface, any more than Roger or Novak can be reduced to the one surface that dominates their records. By the way, I'm not a believer in goats, but if we needed a man to face off vs an alien #1 to save our water supply, I'd choose Rafa every time, except the times I'd choose Pete Sampras...


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Kieran said:


> Clay traditionally has been the toughest test in tennis because it rewards patience and strategy, but nowadays clay has speeded up so it plays a bit like hards, but requires better movement and guile. If you watch the angles they got yesterday, and the all court game, you'll see how clay is the superior surface in so many ways, because there's fewer cheap points off serve.
> 
> All the surfaces have their virtues, but Rafa has won enough away from clay that he can't be reduced to just that surface, any more than Roger or Novak can be reduced to the one surface that dominates their records. By the way, I'm not a believer in goats, but if we needed a man to face off vs an alien #1 to save our water supply, I'd choose Rafa every time, except the times I'd choose Pete Sampras...


Well - the acid test is whether you have a one-handed backhand. That's Roger and Steffi then. (I would be tempted to make a two handed backhand an illegal shot. :devil


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Open Book said:


> Rafa is psychologically the strongest player I have ever seen. It's almost impossible to get him discouraged. He just keeps coming. He is the King of Clay and played exceptionally well today, made very few errors. I think that level of play rattled Djokovic. He wasn't bad except mentally and made some bad decisions. He was unable to fire himself up and the small crowd was initially too stunned to make much encouraging noise. The last set was an improvement, I would have liked to have seen more tennis if it was going to be more like that set. I don't enjoy slaughters. Both did some astonishing things, though.
> 
> Did you see the Djoker debacle at the U.S. Open? His hitting the lineswoman in the throat with a careless swipe of the ball?


Yeah, and then the creepy discussion Djoker had with the official after he hit the lineswoman, trying to wangle a deal. He didn't come out of any of that too well.

Rafa's a brute, his attitude is incredible, his effort, his honesty, his ability to fix things on court, and if he loses, to work hard to get back next time. He had peak Roger early in his career and peak Novak for the second half. No easy shifts! But now he's the record holder with Federer, he might get appreciated a bit more...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Eclectic Al said:


> Well - the acid test is whether you have a one-handed backhand. That's Roger and Steffi then. (I would be tempted to make a two handed backhand an illegal shot. :devil


:lol: that's just unfair! :lol:


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Kieran said:


> Yeah, and then the creepy discussion Djoker had with the official after he hit the lineswoman, trying to wangle a deal. He didn't come out of any of that too well.
> 
> Rafa's a brute, his attitude is incredible, his effort, his honesty, his ability to fix things on court, and if he loses, to work hard to get back next time. He had peak Roger early in his career and peak Novak for the second half. No easy shifts! But now he's the record holder with Federer, he might get appreciated a bit more...


I strained my ears but was unable to hear that discussion. I would have loved to know what was said. How about that look of concern when Djoker realized what he had done -- concern for his staying in the tournament undoubtedly, but made to look like concern for the person he had injured.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Christabel said:


> We have been keeping a close eye on this wonderful tournament, albeit without a sports service. Thiem has just been defeated in a 5 hour contest with Schwartzman; a real upset, though Thiem was clearly exhausted from back-to-back grand slams. You could tell from the first set and commentators remarked on his tiredness. There have been some upsets and it will be interesting to see Schwartzman go head to head with Nadal or Djokovic.
> 
> Once again I remain extremely angry at the unequal distribution of prize-money for grand slams. Women play 'Toy Tennis' (with one win just taking 68 minutes) compared to *up to 5 hours for men*. Women have really bullied the tennis world over this one and I'm wondering why something hasn't said or done something about this insulting disparity. If you divided the hours on the court between men and women you'd see the men playing for a much lower hourly rate. Unacceptable.


I like to watch Schwartzman. He's the best short player in the world in yet another sport where height is an advantage.

I don't understand the obsession with 5 sets, it's not like they get paid by the hour or by the set. It's not like the women have a choice about playing best of 3 sets in the Majors. And who was it here who bemoaned the introduction of a tiebreak at Wimbledon? I believe a match once went to *30* extra sets without that tiebreak and the winner was no good for his next round. I don't want to see players ground to a pulp by longevity of play. A tiebreak is common sense.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Open Book said:


> I strained my ears but was unable to hear that discussion. I would have loved to know what was said. How about that look of concern when Djoker realized what he had done -- concern for his staying in the tournament undoubtedly, but made to look like concern for the person he had injured.


Here's the video. I think his concern was only for himself:


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Kieran said:


> Here's the video. I think his concern was only for himself:


I heard Djoker say "You have options" to the officials, but not much more. Thanks for posting.

I went to the youtube page. The comments are fiercely against the decision to pull Djokovic out of the tournament and show scorn for the lineswoman. But all the analysts agreed that there was no choice, those are the rules for reckless endangerment. They have to be uniformly applied. No playing favorites with top-ranked players.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Open Book said:


> I heard Djoker say "You have options" to the officials, but not much more. Thanks for posting.
> 
> I went to the youtube page. The comments are fiercely against the decision to pull Djokovic out of the tournament and show scorn for the lineswoman. But all the analysts agreed that there was no choice, those are the rules for reckless endangerment. They have to be uniformly applied. No playing favorites with top-ranked players.


He also can be heard saying, she didn't need to go to hospital, and trying to cajole the official into giving him a pass, saying he had other options. It was good the official stood firm..,


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2020)

Kieran said:


> Here's the video. I think his concern was only for himself:


Just to make this one point: Djokovic has some charities on the go and this is seldom, if ever, mentioned. That he's philanthropic needs to be remembered when we rush to criticism, as many people are not in the least philanthropic.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Christabel said:


> Just to make this one point: Djokovic has some charities on the go and this is seldom, if ever, mentioned. That he's philanthropic needs to be remembered when we rush to criticism, as many people are not in the least philanthropic.


Like some of our favorite classical composers, he has positive and negative qualities. We don't have to like any of them personally to appreciate and enjoy their incredible talents.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Christabel said:


> Just to make this one point: Djokovic has some charities on the go and this is seldom, if ever, mentioned. That he's philanthropic needs to be remembered when we rush to criticism, as many people are not in the least philanthropic.


I know he has his nice side, and I think he's great, but I was bingeing on Curb Your Enthusiasm last week and your comment reminded me of this classic:


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2020)

I've never heard of "Curb Your Enthusiasm". But this skit is funny!! Every feminist's nightmare: GOLD.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Christabel said:


> I've never heard of "Curb Your Enthusiasm". But this skit is funny!! Every feminist's nightmare: GOLD.


Have you heard of "Seinfeld"? Larry (bald man with glasses) is its creator. On this show he plays himself, a rather pampered Hollywood television writer with annoying personality quirks. The script is said to be heavily improvised.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2020)

Open Book said:


> Have you heard of "Seinfeld"? Larry (bald man with glasses) is its creator. On this show he plays himself, a rather pampered Hollywood television writer with annoying personality quirks. The script is said to be heavily improvised.


I've never liked Seinfeld, never getting the jokes. I preferred "Frazier", which I found funny and more sophisticated.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Christabel said:


> I've never liked Seinfeld, never getting the jokes. I preferred "Frazier", which I found funny and more sophisticated.


"Seinfeld" and "Curb" feel very different to me. "Curb" can be risque' because it is on HBO.
I loved "Frazier", too. Used to watch it with my mother, good times.


----------

