2018 US Open Final: S. Williams vs. N. Osaka

[Moxie]

You ignore the fact that Serena didn't see the coaching and Patrick said that. You also don't address the notion that it was a Major final, and Ramos could have chosen to de-escalate. I get if you want to be doctrinaire. That's very you.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That's just being snide. Since when does a player saying that muzzle an umpire? I agree with Jelenafan...Ramos should have warned her specifically how close she was to losing a game. The player was emotional, (and I've said that I understand why,) but the umpire is charged with keeping a calm head and using good judgement. I'm not one that prefers letter-of-the-law over keeping a match under control and allowing the players to play it out and the fans to enjoy it without over-determined insertion from the chair.

Sorry, can't buy it. An emotional outburst happens all at once. Serena was almost arguing with the umpire for about half an hour with intermittent breaks in between. If it was just an emotional outburst, the intermittent breaks would have cooled her down. The thing is she was partly upset that her arse was getting beaten and partly adamant. That is not just emotional.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree that Osaka was in the drivers seat at that point; however it is Serena Williams and Osaka was only 1 service break ahead.

1 Service Break.

Someone getting a game from 3-4 to 3-5 is huge, regardless.

Again the odds favored Osaka but we’ve see plenty of one service break sets that have switched around.

Look the "free" game awarded to Osaka was a game in which she will be serving (and so likely to win it). If the same thing happened at a slightly different time, Osaka would have been awarded "free break" of serve. So, even though it was game penalty, the impact is not all that high as it could have been.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You are not allowing for her own personal outrage at being sanctioned, once again, at the USO, where she'd been hit with letter of the law violations that others get, I think, more sway on. I don't think anyone has said that she wasn't the author of her own destruction, to some extent. But it is a puny understanding of her reality, and the circumstance. Sure, it looked like she was going down, anyway. But she was protesting that, once again, she was getting punished at the USO. Is it that hard for you to look at her experience there (and at other events) and not see a bit of a reason to get exercised? I'm sure you have more perspective and empathy than that. As to Osaka...I'm sorry if her moment was a bit stolen. I felt that way about Rafa winning the AO in '09, when Roger cried and made it about himself. Over time, though, you realize that winning is better, and that's the consolation.

Absolutely incomparable events. Roger was crying over his inability to win that match (and thus the GS and thus reach a magical count). Roger's crying in no way implied that Rafa did something wrong. But, here all the insinuation (whether or not Serena meant it) is that Osaka won due to Referee being unreasonable.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You ignore the fact that Serena didn't see the coaching and Patrick said that. You also don't address the notion that it was a Major final, and Ramos could have chosen to de-escalate. I get if you want to be doctrinaire. That's very you.

It is kind of tough to believe that Serena did not get the message.

1. She said it is a thumbs up. So, she saw something at least.

2. Until at that moment, Serena was not going to the net and all of a sudden (after that signal) she started attacking the net.
Hard to believe that it is a mere coincidence.

Having said that, I agree that in general Serena receives less coaching from the box than several other female players. But, I am not inclined to believe that she magically started going to the net (without really getting the message) exactly at that moment.

 

[Moxie]

Absolutely incomparable events. Roger was crying over his inability to win that match (and thus the GS and thus reach a magical count). Roger's crying in no way implied that Rafa did something wrong. But, here all the insinuation (whether or not Serena meant it) is that Osaka won due to Referee being unreasonable.

You may not find it comparable, but I'm not the only one who does. It was brought up recently by someone else here. The match was fine, but the trophy ceremony became about Roger not being able to take his disappointment. Understandable, but it subdued (and took away from) Rafa's celebration at winning his first AO. I'd invite you to watch the trophy ceremony again, if you don't believe me. That said, NO ONE thinks that Osaka won because the umpire inserted himself. The feeling of taking away from her celebration was only that it was so rife with controversy. It distracted from her win. In the same way, Roger's emotional display distracted from Nadal's win. It became rather a lot about Roger's disappointment and tears. Rafa handled it like a gentleman and didn't celebrate overmuch, in deference. But it was his first Major on HCs, and he shouldn't have had to hold back his triumph.

 

[britbox]

You ignore the fact that Serena didn't see the coaching and Patrick said that. You also don't address the notion that it was a Major final, and Ramos could have chosen to de-escalate. I get if you want to be doctrinaire. That's very you.

The rule is on coaching not whether a player sees it... though Serena claimed it was a thumbs up (it wasn't and why would she even say that if she saw nothing).

Bernard Tomic once asked for an umpire to remove his Dad from the stadium after he recieved a coaching violation. He didn't even want him there.

 

[Moxie]

It is kind of tough to believe that Serena did not get the message.

1. She said it is a thumbs up. So, she saw something at least.

2. Until at that moment, Serena was not going to the net and all of a sudden (after that signal) she started attacking the net.
Hard to believe that it is a mere coincidence.

Having said that, I agree that in general Serena receives less coaching from the box than several other female players. But, I am not inclined to believe that she magically started going to the net (without really getting the message) exactly at that moment.

It doesn't really matter what she saw or didn't, does it? Everyone is convinced by what they think. As you said, she doesn't receive coaching even when it's allowed. And she's an experienced enough champion to know what she ought to change. But let me ask you this: do you really think the match needed to turn into that much of a circus? And was it only Serena's fault? The chair has some power and responsibility. If Leyhani could give Kyrgios a pep talk and a cuddle, why couldn't Ramos have diffused the situation with Serena a bit better? At least so that everyone might have enjoyed that final rather more.

 

[Moxie]

The rule is on coaching not whether a player sees it... though Serena claimed it was a thumbs up (it wasn't and why would she even say that if she saw nothing).

Bernard Tomic once asked for an umpire to remove his Dad from the stadium after he recieved a coaching violation. He didn't even want him there.

Perhaps she did see a thumb's up. Morataglou says he didn't think she saw the coaching gesture. Impossible that there were two? The Tomic anecdote has no bearing on this argument.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You may not find it comparable, but I'm not the only one who does. It was brought up recently by someone else here. The match was fine, but the trophy ceremony became about Roger not being able to take his disappointment. Understandable, but it subdued (and took away from) Rafa's celebration at winning his first AO. I'd invite you to watch the trophy ceremony again, if you don't believe me. That said, NO ONE thinks that Osaka won because the umpire inserted himself. The feeling of taking away from her celebration was only that it was so rife with controversy. It distracted from her win. In the same way, Roger's emotional display distracted from Nadal's win. It became rather a lot about Roger's disappointment and tears. Rafa handled it like a gentleman and didn't celebrate overmuch, in deference. But it was his first Major on HCs, and he shouldn't have had to hold back his triumph.

I don't have to watch it again. I personally felt bad for Rafa and I was actually mad at Roger at that time. I felt that his crying took the buzz out of Rafa's moment. It took me several years to accept that it is OK (for Roger) to cry.

In terms of not letting the winner enjoy the moment it is similar.

But,other than that the situation is totally different. There was no question that Rafa legitimately won that match and Roger's crying did not take that legitimacy away. But, here all the controversy and the booing was a partial attempt at taking the legitimacy of Osaka's win away.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It doesn't really matter what she saw or didn't, does it? Everyone is convinced by what they think. As you said, she doesn't receive coaching even when it's allowed. And she's an experienced enough champion to know what she ought to change. But let me ask you this: do you really think the match needed to turn into that much of a circus? And was it only Serena's fault? The chair has some power and responsibility. If Leyhani could give Kyrgios a pep talk and a cuddle, why couldn't Ramos have diffused the situation with Serena a bit better? At least so that everyone might have enjoyed that final rather more.

Can I ask that if Vee can behave so politely, why can't Serena? They are two different people despite being sisters.

Lehyani and Ramos are two different people. They are not even brothers.

 

[britbox]

Perhaps she did see a thumb's up. Morataglou says he didn't think she saw the coaching gesture. Impossible that there were two? The Tomic anecdote has no bearing on this argument.

It does... He wasn't acting on coaching and got penalised because his father was talking and signalling. He complained to the umpire about it... but got stuck with a coaching violation.

 

[britbox]

Leyhani has been roundly criticised by just about everybody for putting an arm around Kyrgios... yet now you are saying Ramos (a completely different person) should be using that as the blueprint? Lol.

 

[Moxie]

I don't have to watch it again. I personally felt bad for Rafa and I was actually mad at Roger at that time. I felt that his crying took the buzz out of Rafa's moment. It took me several years to accept that it is OK (for Roger) to cry.

In terms of not letting the winner enjoy the moment it is similar.

But,other than that the situation is totally different. There was no question that Rafa legitimately won that match and Roger's crying did not take that legitimacy away. But, here all the controversy and the booing was a partial attempt at taking the legitimacy of Osaka's win away.

So you do get my point about the AO. It did steal something from Rafa's moment. There is a similarity there.

No one wanted to take away from Osaka's win. As to the booing, you have to understand that the crowd was understandably confused about what had happened. Without an explanation of the fine-points of the rules, any large tennis crowd should be forgiven for not knowing what happened. Again, this is where I fault the chair for not handling the situation well enough. It was going to be a pro-Serena crowd. He should have taken that into the calculation. And he should have explained it to the crowd. Remember, they have no benefit of commentary. And they have seen Serena hard done by at the Open before. I have never said that Serena didn't behave poorly, but I do think that the chair had something to do with the devolution of the atmosphere. It's the chair's job to keep a modicum of calm, and rein in bad behavior by a player, not get involved in it.

 

[Moxie]

Leyhani has been roundly criticised by just about everybody for putting an arm around Kyrgios... yet now you are saying Ramos (a completely different person) should be using that as the blueprint? Lol.

What that is is an example of different behavior towards a male player than to a female one. I understand that they're different umpires, but you have to admit that perennial bad-boy Nick got a pat on the head, and Serena has been treated like a harridan. If you don't see that as unequal treatment, then I don't know what. Especially given that one of those matches was a final.

 

[Moxie]

Can I ask that if Vee can behave so politely, why can't Serena? They are two different people despite being sisters.

Lehyani and Ramos are two different people. They are not even brothers.

This is not even the least related as a point. Even sisters are not expected to demonstrate more or less the same behavior, as players, though, I would argue, umpires are.

 

[britbox]

So you do get my point about the AO. It did steal something from Rafa's moment. There is a similarity there.

No one wanted to take away from Osaka's win. As to the booing, you have to understand that the crowd was understandably confused about what had happened. Without an explanation of the fine-points of the rules, any large tennis crowd should be forgiven for not knowing what happened. Again, this is where I fault the chair for not handling the situation well enough. It was going to be a pro-Serena crowd. He should have taken that into the calculation. And he should have explained it to the crowd. Remember, they have no benefit of commentary. And they have seen Serena hard done by at the Open before. I have never said that Serena didn't behave poorly, but I do think that the chair had something to do with the devolution of the atmosphere. It's the chair's job to keep a modicum of calm, and rein in bad behavior by a player, not get involved in it.

It's not in the rulebook for the umpire to provide a sermon to the crowd educating them on the rules of tennis. They are there to govern the match between the players, making sure the rules are adhered to. This is beyond silly.

 

[Moxie]

It's not in the rulebook for the umpire to provide a sermon to the crowd educating them on the rules of tennis. They are there to govern the match between the players, making sure the rules are adhered to. This is beyond silly.

I was merely explaining why the crowd was so incensed. It's not "silly." I'll ask you again: do you think that the match needed to devolve that badly, and do you really think it was all down to Serena? Do you not think that the umpire has some role in controlling the timbre of things?

 

[britbox]

What that is is an example of different behavior towards a male player than to a female one. I understand that they're different umpires, but you have to admit that perennial bad-boy Nick got a pat on the head, and Serena has been treated like a harridan. If you don't see that as unequal treatment, then I don't know what. Especially given that one of those matches was a final.

Again... you are not comparing apples with oranges.

Kyrgios had a pep talk for what I suppose the umpire thought was possibly tanking. Serena called the umpire a liar, thief and said he would never umpire another one of her matches.

If you want to compare apples and apples - go out and find me a situation where the umpire has climbed out of his chair and put their around a man being so abusive and questioning their integrity (not just complaining about a bad call or mistake).

This is laughable considering you considered the Tomic example irrelevant (where the situation was much the same) and a totally different situation with Kyrgios.

 

[britbox]

I was merely explaining why the crowd was so incensed. It's not "silly." I'll ask you again: do you think that the match needed to devolve that badly, and do you really think it was all down to Serena? Do you not think that the umpire has some role in controlling the timbre of things?

I think most of it was down to Serena, yes. But I don't really hold her accountable for the crowd boos - that's on the crowd more than her... and at least she had the courtesy to try and de-escalate during the ceremony... so some positive kudos for that.