The Times - UK (2022-05-25)

66 2GMV2 Wednesday May 25 2022 | the times

SportFrench Open

In an intensely painful stand-off that
tennis has been unable to resolve, it
remains the strange truth that by taking
a principled stance against the Russian
invasion of Ukraine, Wimbledon has
found itself being cast as the villain.
More than any major sport has tennis
adopted a liberal, sympathetic attitude
to Russian athletes. Most sports quickly
implemented a boycott of Russian
athletes and, in doing so, they have
understood that Russian athletes are
neither the instigators of the invasion
nor necessarily even approvers of it, yet
the stance — the principle, the message
— was deemed more important than
the rights of individual Russian athletes
to compete.
So tennis is the outlier here and this
makes Daniil Medvedev, by some
distance, the best-known Russian
athlete on the planet who is still able to
compete internationally. Indeed, there
he was on Court Suzanne-Lenglen
yesterday morning at Roland Garros,
willowy and graceful, securing an easy
straight-sets victory to progress into
the French Open’s second round.
On Monday evening, Novak Djokov-
ic was the target of pantomime booing
here. You wondered, therefore, how
Medvedev would be received the
following day. The answer was: with a
genuine rapturous warmth.
He was asked afterwards, in the on-
court interview, about how much “the
French Open loves you” and replied by
saying: “I love this stadium.” Cue more
applause. Respect here goes to the
French crowd for separating the player
from his nationality.
Yet Wimbledon has joined the rest of
the world — the world beyond tennis —
in saying that this year Russian athletes
cannot be separated from their nation-
ality and that Medvedev and other
Russian and Belarusian players will not
be invited to compete in the All
England Championships next month.
Here is the conflict, because tennis
decided to inflict a punishment on
Wimbledon by withdrawing ranking
points. The headline act, thereafter,
was Naomi Osaka who suggested that,
without ranking points on offer, she
was likely to swerve Wimbledon. What
if other players were to follow?
The floor, at this stage, should go to
Lesia Tsurenko, the Ukrainian player,
who was handed a rapid 6-2, 6-0 defeat
by the No 1 seed, Iga Swiatek, on
Monday. After the match, Tsurenko
talked about how she struggled for
motivation with the conflict at home al-
ways in her mind. “I win or lose, what-
ever: it doesn’t matter really,” she said.
And then this: “I would like top
players just to support more and to
show more understanding of what is
really going on. Because it’s life and life
is more than a tennis match.”
Then, when asked if many players
had extended to her their care and

sympathy, she said “maybe four or five”

and maybe a few more coaches. At this

point, you wonder if her fellow athletes

are losing sight of the real prize.

Let’s throw in a few qualifying points

here. It is clear that the communication

around the issue has not been good. It

appears that, when they made the deci-

sion to withdraw ranking points from

Wimbledon, the ATP and the WTA did

not consult their players sufficiently.

It also appears that Wimbledon and

the ATP and the WTA could have

worked harder together to find some

kind of a middle ground. And also, cru-

cially here, the men and women players

may be united under their umbrella

organisations of the ATP and the WTA

but they all have widely differing view-

points and many are understandably

reluctant to voice them when the issue

at the heart of the toxic dispute is the

Russian invasion.

However, it seems that the players

are now presented with a binary choice:

Players are losing

sight of what is

actually at stake

to play in a Wimbledon that is stripped

of ranking points, or to skip it. In or out.

To the Wimbledon crowds and the

Wimbledon TV audience, a lack of

ranking points will not diminish the

championship. Indeed, they may

wonder what the ranking points fuss is

all about. Here, in short, is the answer:

ranking points determine a player’s

ranking position. They govern the

chances a player has of qualifying for

tournaments or, at the more elite end,

of being seeded for them — both of

which influence their income. Ranking

points are also important to players’

sponsors; you can get bonuses for

where you sit in the top 100.

There are reputation elements here,

too. If you finish in the very top tier, you

qualify for the big end-of-season finals.

And every player will always be able to

tell you the highest position they ever

reached in the world rankings. To have

had even a week at No 1 is a lifetime

achievement.

In other words, ranking points do a

lot of what Wimbledon does. Wimble-

don is a massive prize money event.

And arguably there is no greater

achievement in the sport than becom-

ing Wimbledon champion.

So what will happen during the Wim-

bledon fortnight is Osaka — probably

— and other players, though we have

no idea how many, may elect to play

other tournaments where they will get

ranking points. Medvedev will play a

series of grass-court events that will, in

all likelihood, return him to No 1.

“I’d be really happy to play

Wimbledon,” he said yesterday. “I love

Wimbledon. I love playing on grass.”

And then he added, acknowledging the

irony of his position: “[If] I become No 1,

well great for me.”

That is the carrot and, in the coming

weeks, we will discover where players

place their priorities, whether they are

chasing points away from Wimbledon

or the traditional prizes in SW19.

For some it will depend where they sit

in the rankings; for others, it depends

on whether they like the Wimbledon

grass. For some, there may be an

element of solidarity with Medvedev

and the other banned Russians and

Belarusians. For many, the answer will

be more about: what is best for me?

And, again, you wonder: have they not

lost sight of the bigger issue here?

What has been lost long ago is the

concept of showing solidarity with

Wimbledon. Wimbledon took a princi-

pled stand against the Russian invasion.

How powerful would the players’

statement have been if they had just all

stood by it?

Conversely, what if Wimbledon next

month does end up with a weakened

field? How would that reflect on tennis?

It would be the year Wimbledon

suffered because of its principled

stance. Is that how the sport would

choose to look?

Here, again, is Tsurenko, with some

context. “It’s only one tournament,” she

said, and she referenced other sports

where Russians face a blanket ban, and

the turmoil in Ukraine. “I feel a lot of

terrible things and I think compared to

that, losing a chance to play in one

tournament is nothing.”

Owen Slot

Chief Sports

Writer

Players’ and pundits’ view

Naomi Osaka

I’m not sure why, but if I play

Wimbledon without points, it’s more

like an exhibition. I know this isn’t

true, right? But my brain just like

feels that way.

I’m the type of player that gets

motivated by seeing my ranking go

up. So I think the intention was

really good, but the execution is

kind of all over the place.

Martina Navratilova

I always played for the trophies —

not the points and not the money. It

was Wimbledon, and everything

else came in second. I don’t

understand that view, that players

wouldn’t play because there are no

points. You are playing for ranking? I

just wanted to hold that trophy, that

wonderful rose dish.

Novak Djokovic

I’m glad that players got together

with the ATP, the governing body of

the men’s tennis, and showed to the

grand slam that, you know, when

there is a mistake happening — and

there was from the Wimbledon side

— then we have to show that there is

going to be some consequences.

Iga Swiatek

I think that when I’m going to step

out on court it’s going to be normal

for me, because I don’t mind points.

I already have so many points this

season it’s going to be fine for me.

John McEnroe

I think it was a mistake by

Wimbledon to kick out the Russians

and Belarusians.

Compounded by the fact that now

the ATP and WTA say no [ranking]

points, I don’t see how that helps

the players. If the players really

believe that Wimbledon has made a

big mistake by not allowing them to

play, they should have boycotted

the tournament.

McEnroe squares up to

continued from back

really matter whatever the situation is,

I am here to play and I will play what-

ever the situation is. If that means I

cannot defend my points then so be it. I

just enjoy competing.”

Martina Navratilova, who won nine

Wimbledon singles titles, questioned

Osaka’s stance. “I just don’t understand

the mentality,” she told Piers Morgan

Uncensored on TalkTV. “I would like to

sit down with her and just tell her about

the history of Wimbledon.”

The All England Club board is yet to

decide on the size of the pot. A meeting

will be held early next month to con-

firm the breakdown of money on offer

to competitors and insiders believe it is

unlikely that the removal of ranking

points will have much impact. First-

round losers can expect a cheque in the

region of £50,000 just for turning up.

normally. I’m sorry for Russia and

Russians, but they are the ones causing

all the trouble. And all the ATP players

are actually paying the price.”

While Naomi Osaka indicated on

Monday that she was considering

skipping Wimbledon because of the

lack of points on offer, most players

asked yesterday said that they were

still intending to compete. Emma

Raducanu will lose 240 points after

her run to the fourth round last year

but confirmed that she has no intention

of withdrawing.

“I know that it was a really tough

decision,” the US Open champion said.

“But for me personally I will play. I have

got a lot of points coming off from

Wimbledon, but for me it doesn’t

Medvedev eased into the second round of the French Open and could become