PDA

View Full Version : Does Wertheim Contradict Himself?


cynicole
Apr 6th, 2004, 12:33 AM
And I mean strictly in these two responses...

From L. Jon Wertheim's most recent mailbag:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/jon_wertheim/04/05/mailbag/index.html

I think it was unfair of you to say "shame on Davenport" for failing to play at the Nasdaq-100. She has said she injured herself in Miami six of the past nine years, or something like that, and she also doesn't like the conditions there. How can you fault a player for not playing a tournament she obviously hasn't had success at throughout her career?
-- Robert O'Connor, Bellerose, N.Y.

In fairness to Davenport, she does more than her share -- perhaps more than any other player -- to support the tour. But again, this isn't the Des Moines Open. This is a cornerstone event that is vital for sponsorship exposure, television, buzz, etc. It was, frankly, an embarrassment that the women's field was so threadbare. Given the number of players out with legitimate physical injuries, I would submit the healthy gold exempt players had a moral obligation (OK, that might be too dramatic, but you get my drift) to enter. By the way, since when does "not having success" or "not liking conditions" make for a valid excuse not to play a big-time event?

---and---

You haven't mentioned Agassi's decision to skip the entire 2004 clay-court season except for the French Open. His management told the U.S. Men's Clay Courts Championships that Agassi won't defend his title there because "he is getting older and clay is tougher to play on."
-- Earl Strickler, Houston
Far as we're concerned, at his age he pretty much has license to come and go as he pleases. That said, I'm not entirely sure I understand how clay is a tougher surface. Sure, the rallies might be prolonged, but I would think playing a springtime event on a gentler surface would ultimately be kinder to his aging body.

faboozadoo15
Apr 6th, 2004, 12:36 AM
well he kinda defended both of them but in the end didn't approve of what their decisions were... so he kinda did, kinda didn't contradict himself.

cynicole
Apr 6th, 2004, 12:39 AM
well he kinda defended both of them but in the end didn't approve of what their decisions were... so he kinda did, kinda didn't contradict himself.
Darn, I should have made that an option!

- L i n a -
Apr 6th, 2004, 12:49 AM
Why do people still care what clowns like Wertheim and Cronin say?

They always write the usual bandwagon shit.

cynicole
Apr 6th, 2004, 12:58 AM
Why do people still care what clowns like Wertheim and Cronin say?

They always write the usual bandwagon shit.
Because Wertheim writes for Sports Illustrated which is supposed to be THE sports magazine in this country and Cronin is probably the most prolific stateside tennis reporter. Hence, it's their words that most people read and form their opinions on...which, in some cases could be "damaging" to how the sport is perceived by people who don't follow tennis regularly.

*JR*
Apr 6th, 2004, 01:19 AM
Under WTA rules (unless changed again) there was a remedy besides a "moral appeal". An example occured early in this incredible run of injuries on tour, when one J. Capriati was "hard-committed" into New Haven, an obligation that can be imposed upon a Gold Exempt player. Would Linzi Lie To The WTA about injury to escape this? And Jen won her first non-Slam in ages, so a little gentle coercion Worked Wonders! :D

Bright Red
Apr 6th, 2004, 01:54 AM
I don't think he contradicts himself across his two responses above.

To Lindsay, he's basically saying that healthy top players should support an event if there are a lot of absences due to injury.

In Andre's case, he's speaking about the entire men's clay season--which is sure to be full of all of the other top male players and won't be noticeably diminished by the absence of a single star player.

TeeRexx
Apr 6th, 2004, 02:54 AM
Bright Red - As usual, you are so insightful and, er, bright.

cynicole
Apr 6th, 2004, 03:01 AM
I don't think he contradicts himself across his two responses above.

To Lindsay, he's basically saying that healthy top players should support an event if there are a lot of absences due to injury.

In Andre's case, he's speaking about the entire men's clay season--which is sure to be full of all of the other top male players and won't be noticeably diminished by the absence of a single star player.
But that clay season includes TMS events. Don't you think TMS events on European clay would get better financial support and television coverage (particularly in the States) if Andre showed up? Yes, it will affect his ranking a little bit but he'll be skipping THREE Masters Series events: Monte Carlo, Rome and Hamburg. Or is it just Miami that only matters and screw all the other big non-slams? If lots of the top men got injured and missed out on Hamburg, should Andre be "morally obligated" to show up there or do the rules change? And isn't Andre skipping the European clay because of those "bogus Lindsay excuses" like "not liking conditions"?

I just don't see why everyone should be bitching and moaning about JHH and Davenport not committing to Miami just because everyone else suffered freakish injury / didn't take care of self properly through training or smart scheduling got hurt.

Brian Stewart
Apr 6th, 2004, 07:21 AM
Wertheim is to journalism as a bicycle is to a fish.

He frequently contradicts himself. Look at his view of people holding the #1 ranking without holding a slam title over the course of 3 successive years. When Davenport did it in 2001, it was an outrage. Yet when Agassi was on the verge of doing it in 2002, it would "validate the tour". Then, when Clijsters did it in 2003, it was "an embarassment". Double standard much?

To the apparent surprise of most tennis writers, there are more than just these 2 tournaments on the tour. And as such, the players set their schedules accordingly to balance matchplay, rest, surfaces, etc. Even then, every top player was entered in either IW or Miami, with almost every player in both. Only the Williamses were not scheduled for IW, and only Henin and Davenport were not scheduled for Miami. Those are deep fields. Thus, the problem is not one of player "scheduling", and as such, making these events "mandatory" would not have helped.

The problem was, plain and simple, injuries. And these aren't scheduled. Mauresmo and Rubin couldn't have said back in early February that they wouldn't be healed in time for IW or Miami. Clijsters and Myskina couldn't have said that they would get injured at IW. So it's nonsense to expect other players to have to cover for them, as their absences from these events came at the last minute. The only "moral obligation" a healthy top player has is to honor her commitments. In the case of Henin and Davenport, these included AI and Charleston, BOTH of which would have to be jettisoned to take a late entry into Miami. And they would be running the risk of injury themselves.

And yet, in direct contrast to basic logic, many writers are calling for the WTA to "do" something. "Do" what, exactly? Pass a new rule banning injuries? Yes, let's legislate good health. Or should they just force players to play? Myskina probably could have played Miami if she was forced to. And she even more probably could have done a more serious injury to herself, necessitating the absence of more than a few weeks. Let's see... player climbs into top 5, becomes darkhorse contender for slams and Olympic medal, forced to miss those events as career is interrupted by injury incurred/aggravated by mandated play... how many millions could a good lawyer get for that? But then, it's not the writers' money they're gambling.

Andy T
Apr 6th, 2004, 08:18 AM
:worship: Brian.

To Jon Wertheim we say: "talk to the hand, honey, 'cos the face ain't lis'nin!"

pigam
Apr 6th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Yes he does. Nothing new here.
I don't know what to think of this guy. Sometimes I think: 'yeah, I agree' and other times it's like 'WTF is he talking about!?!?' I don't like his writingstyle either. He writes for a magazine like SI (which should be quality, no?) and it seems as if he's just typing on a messageboard, just like all of us :confused: I don't know. I don't vallue his opinion that much, thats for sure ;)

CapFan#1
Apr 6th, 2004, 01:34 PM
Under WTA rules (unless changed again) there was a remedy besides a "moral appeal". An example occured early in this incredible run of injuries on tour, when one J. Capriati was "hard-committed" into New Haven, an obligation that can be imposed upon a Gold Exempt player. Would Linzi Lie To The WTA about injury to escape this? And Jen won her first non-Slam in ages, so a little gentle coercion Worked Wonders! :D
Sorry, but you got this one wrong. Jen took a late entry into New Haven last year because she missed Toronto and LA due to her shoulder injury and wanted to get match tough before the US Open. It was her choice to go to New Haven. She was forced to play Mosco in the fall and lost in the 2nd round. So the "gentle" coercion did NOT work wonders......................

hotandspicey
Apr 6th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Wertheim doesn't know his ass from his elbow!!!

Bright Red
Apr 7th, 2004, 12:41 AM
Bright Red - As usual, you are so insightful and, er, bright.
First Serena comes back and now Mr. Rexx. Can the season get any better?!?!

Where have you been?

Welcome back, Tee. :bounce:

wongqks
Apr 7th, 2004, 01:16 AM
yep the first tiem I read his recent mailbag and about him talking about Agassi, i remember straight away his comment about JH and LD.