|
|
Post by Alya10 on Mar 2, 2007 17:47:59 GMT 3
|
|
taboo
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by taboo on Mar 2, 2007 17:48:07 GMT 3
The discussion here is not really about the RR! It is about changing the rules of RR in a preferential manner and in the last minute!
Hewitt himself said they were explained the rules and the only way for Korolev to go through was for del Potro to withdraw. He did it and Korolev still did not go through!
I haven't exactly made up my mind if I am for or against RR, but either way, I believe that rules should be respected - and people too, Korolev was treated like garbage!
|
|
|
|
Post by bia2209 on Mar 2, 2007 18:05:22 GMT 3
 First off, your welcome to everyone for the report and thank you all for your kind words  . It was my pleasure. Ok, it kind of felt like excrutiating pain at the time but it was worth it and I was happy to do it.  Second, thanks to Lau for posting the ATP's contact info, which brings me to the third thing I want to say. SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME ON THE ATP!!!  It's funny casue when I was watching coverage of the tournament during the doubles before Marat, they kept mentioning the Blake situation and show an interview with him but I didn't really grasp what had happened until I read the article Annie posted. This is disgusting as far as I'm concerned. First of all, what does it say about the ATP that they have written and adopted a rule that they themselves don't seem to understand?  Second of all, when you have this kind of problem, the sensible thing to do, would be go with the majority interpretation at the time, i.e. what do most people seem to think the rule means? In this case, according to Hewitt, the players, the tv commentators and clearly the tournament organziers (otherwise why would they have called De Villiers?) believed that the rule meant Blake was out and Korolev was in. So they should have gone with that and once the tournament was over, then they should have seen about changing the rule. As someone said, good on Marat and Lleyton (never thought I'd see the day where Llyeton and I agreed on much of anything  ) for speaking up. The fact is if the situation had been reversed, and Blake was the one to have benefited from Zhenya's opponant withdrawing, they wouldn't have lifted a finger to change that rule. The RR has been a mess from the start. Zhenya deserves much, much better than this, especially after producing such a classy performance against Blake a couple nights ago. And the ATP know it as well, because they tried to fob him with extra prize money. It is literally sickening and I hope that Zhenya beats the crap out of Blake in a Grand Slam or a Masters Series where we don't have any of this kind of foolishness to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by lau on Mar 2, 2007 18:06:39 GMT 3
taboo, do you like what happened in Buenos Aires and what would have been happed if Mr. Disney wouldn´t have bended the rules? There´s nothing wrong if you do, you´re entitled to your opinion.  It´s just that I didn´t think anyone would still like it. IMHO, the RR creates unfair situations, and I´m not talking about this one in particular where even the RR rules were broken. Anyway, I just hope that everyone who agree with it signs the online petition www.petitiononline.com/nomorerr/petition.html and/or send a letter or calls by telephone. And good for Marat and Hewitt for speaking up. |
|
|
|
Post by bia2209 on Mar 2, 2007 18:13:45 GMT 3
What exactly happened in Buenos Aires? For some reason, I don't seem to have heard about this. |
|
|
|
Post by lau on Mar 2, 2007 18:16:38 GMT 3
|
|
|
|
Post by bia2209 on Mar 2, 2007 18:25:49 GMT 3
OK, thanks Lau. I appreciate it.
|
|
taboo
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by taboo on Mar 2, 2007 18:28:45 GMT 3
When I said I have not made up my mind about RR, I meant it! But they bent the rules, and if they did it with RR, there is no reason why they should not do it with any other system!
Ok, it was easier to do it with RR, because, as Bia put it, it leaves a lot of space for interpretations. The decision itself, however, and the nerve with which they did it, expresses an attitude toward players - the 'we have power, we decide' kind of attitude, that does not include rules. It is the same kind of explanation that Marat was given when he refused to play on a wet court and endanger his health at the AO.
If I vote or not is my business, but just to be clear: event if RR is dropped, I believe these situations will happen again, because the people and the policy will be the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by lau on Mar 2, 2007 18:35:40 GMT 3
If I vote or not is my business, but just to be clear: event if RR is dropped, I believe these situations will happen again, because the people and the policy will be the same. I´m sorry, I never meant you HAD to vote. I was just curious about your opinion. I don´t pretend to force anyone, really, I mean it Sometimes my English is not good enough to express what I mean, sorry. Anyway, there will always be troubles, but this draw makes them even worst. Not to say it was tested to benefit higher ranked and more popular players. Just the concept behind it is sooo wrong IMHO. BTW, at least in the case of Marat in the AO and the wet court (and I´m not saying he was wrong), the court and the conditions were the same for both players ;D |
|
taboo
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by taboo on Mar 2, 2007 18:55:57 GMT 3
You did not say I HAVE to vote but you implied I like RR, which is not true! Please forgive me, I am just joking, I am not a text analysis freak! LMAO Anyway, I understand what you are saying, and you have strong arguments. I didn't know about the Buenos Aires 'affair' either. Thanks for the info. I stand by what I said and I hope you are right, that things will go smoother without RR. P.S.: at the AO, no matter if the players liked the court or not, the officials were supposed to think about their health because it is common sense to think about and respect the health of the people that bring you money and that promote tennis. Without players, there are no spectators, there are no sponsors, so on... Players get money out of it too, but the people behind the scenes get much more. Marat, probably, felt he was treated unfair considering how much he did for tennis that is why he started that scandal, Roddick did not...personalities and levels of sensitivity and experience differ... |
|
|
|
Post by lau on Mar 2, 2007 19:02:18 GMT 3
The fact that Roddick was winning and Marat losing was something important too. I´m not sure he would have complained in the way he did it if it would have been the other way round Anyway, if the court was wet they shouldn´t have played. |
|
|
|
Post by Annie on Mar 2, 2007 21:04:18 GMT 3
OMFG they overruled their previous decision and Zhenya is back!!!!!!!!!! ATP have really discredited themselves fully in a matter of a few hours!!!!!!!!! I cannot even find the words. Article is posted in Dinara and Other Players - Tennis Tour News. Thanks Lau |
|
|
|
Post by Patxy on Mar 2, 2007 21:43:52 GMT 3
Marat made more than 78 UE's? damn.... From yesterday's match  |
|
|
|
Post by Patxy on Mar 2, 2007 21:55:23 GMT 3
OOP for Friday 02, March  STADIUM Matches Start At: 12:00 PM James BLAKE (USA) (or Korolev?) vs Sam QUERREY (USA) Not Before 2:00 PM Fernando VERDASCO (ESP) vs Marat SAFIN (RUS) |
|
|
|
Post by Elisabeth on Mar 3, 2007 2:24:53 GMT 3
YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY
thxs Nanie and also Bia for give me scores!! ;D
|
|
) for speaking up. The fact is if the situation had been reversed, and Blake was the one to have benefited from Zhenya's opponant withdrawing, they wouldn't have lifted a finger to change that rule.
