2019 ATP General News

[Moxie]

I came here hoping I'd find out about the draw. I've tried usopen website as well as wikipedia, but couldn't find the information.

Pretty sure it will be on Friday. Traditionally around noon EDT.

 

[britbox]

I read that both draws are on Thursday.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I read that both draws are on Thursday.

All I ask is no Silent KK anywhere near Rafa’s zip code. Rafa has to change his strategy vs that beast from Russia.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

q2 usopen today isnt it ?.

old-young guns like hyeon chung and young-young guns like jannik sinner continue to fight the good fight.

 

[AnonymousFan]

 

[isabelle]

according to l'Equipe, Juan Martin'll announce his return next week, can't wait to see him healthy and back in action

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

according to l'Equipe, Juan Martin'll announce his return next week, can't wait to see him healthy and back in action

Goodness me that was quick,I did not think he would be returning to the tour until next year.Fingers crossed No More Injuries for Juan!

 

[Carol]

Muzz is already practicing in the Rafa’ s Academy where he is going to play the Rafa Nadal Open invited by his friend and where he is trying to find the best vibra and confidence

 

[isabelle]

great fo Sir Andy, hope he can be in top form soon

 

[mrzz]

Saw on Brazilian media that Damián Steiner, umpire of the Wimbledon final, was fired by the ATP over an "unauthorized interview" he gave after the final. Never saw him doing anything wrong so that seems quite harsh.

 

[isabelle]

good news, Delpotro confirmed his return in Stockholm, then he'll play Wien. hope it's true...

 

[Moxie]

Saw on Brazilian media that Damián Steiner, umpire of the Wimbledon final, was fired by the ATP over an "unauthorized interview" he gave after the final. Never saw him doing anything wrong so that seems quite harsh.

I found this article in the NYTimes which sheds a little light on it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/sports/tennis/damian-steiner-umpire-fired.html

I would hope they could bring him back at some point. As you say, firing seems too harsh.

 

[mrzz]

I found this article in the NYTimes which sheds a little light on it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/sports/tennis/damian-steiner-umpire-fired.html

I would hope they could bring him back at some point. As you say, firing seems too harsh.

First news I got about this were not detailed at all. This article is informative. I can lament the fact that a good umpire was fired, but I understand ATP reason's now. If it was clear that he could not give interviews, if it was clear that some topics should never be discussed (and in this case I understand why), then the guy simply crossed the line. And, as I understood, it was a clear and mutually agreed red line (if it wasn't, than it is another story).

 

[Moxie]

First news I got about this were not detailed at all. This article is informative. I can lament the fact that a good umpire was fired, but I understand ATP reason's now. If it was clear that he could not give interviews, if it was clear that some topics should never be discussed (and in this case I understand why), then the guy simply crossed the line. And, as I understood, it was a clear and mutually agreed red line (if it wasn't, than it is another story).

Right, but then this also gets to the notion of transparency in the ATP, which the article mentions. I completely understand why umpires are proscribed from discussing certain things, as it can call into question their objectivity. It's my understanding that they always stay in separate hotels from players, too. That's a good thing. But the "appearance" from ATP is that they don't like people saying anything, which is a bad look for them, rightly or wrongly. I still think a warning and a temporary suspension should be punishment enough. It's not like great umpires come a dime-a-dozen.

 

[mrzz]

Right, but then this also gets to the notion of transparency in the ATP, which the article mentions. I completely understand why umpires are proscribed from discussing certain things, as it can call into question their objectivity. It's my understanding that they always stay in separate hotels from players, too. That's a good thing. But the "appearance" from ATP is that they don't like people saying anything, which is a bad look for them, rightly or wrongly. I still think a warning and a temporary suspension should be punishment enough. It's not like great umpires come a dime-a-dozen.

I agree with you, specially the last part... but it all depends on the agreement they have. Also, they may want to send a message. If that is the case, then it is better to fire him and hire him back in, I don't know, two years time. The last thing ATP wants is any minimally credible story that player A or B is favored.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I found this article in the NYTimes which sheds a little light on it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/sports/tennis/damian-steiner-umpire-fired.html

I would hope they could bring him back at some point. As you say, firing seems too harsh.

I have also (independently) found the same NYT article about Steiner firing where I noted this detail:

"In another interview, with Radio Continental, Steiner said he believed that Federer was going to win the Wimbledon title when he had two match points late in the fifth set of the final against Djokovic."

Up to that point I could agree with you that the sanction on Steiner was harsh, but now I don't think so. This interview revealed that Steiner not only violated the "no interview" ATP rules but he admitted that he was actually biased during the match by emotionally supporting one player on his very match at play! The admission of such blatant violation of impartiality is unheard of. ATP had no choice in this case, IMO. One cannot officiate if he cannot be impartial. If ATP allowed Steiner to officiate in the future, in any Fed match in particular, ATP would face serious criticism from everyone, especially Federer's opponent who could question the match to be invalid due to umpire's bias. The strict rules about impartiality are there for good reasons, and I agree it's better to sacrifice an otherwise good ump who made a mistake here, rather than relax the rules.

 

[tented]

I have also (independently) found the same NYT article about Steiner firing where I noted this detail:

"In another interview, with Radio Continental, Steiner said he believed that Federer was going to win the Wimbledon title when he had two match points late in the fifth set of the final against Djokovic."

Up to that point I could agree with you that the sanction on Steiner was harsh, but now I don't think so. This interview revealed that Steiner not only violated the "no interview" ATP rules but he admitted that he was actually biased during the match by emotionally supporting one player on his very match at play! The admission of such blatant violation of impartiality is unheard of. ATP had no choice in this case, IMO. One cannot officiate if he cannot be impartial. If ATP allowed Steiner to officiate in the future, in any Fed match in particular, ATP would face serious criticism from everyone, especially Federer's opponent who could question the match to be invalid due to umpire's bias. The strict rules about impartiality are there for good reasons, and I agree it's better to sacrifice an otherwise good ump who made a mistake here, rather than relax the rules.

Stating you think a player is going to win because they have two championship points isn’t being biased; it’s being realistic. Who wouldn’t have thought he was going to win at that point? It’s Roger Federer, with not one, but two match points. Of course you’re going to think he’s going to win.

 

[mrzz]

Stating you think a player is going to win because they have two championship points isn’t being biased; it’s being realistic. Who wouldn’t have thought he was going to win at that point? It’s Roger Federer, with not one, but two match points. Of course you’re going to think he’s going to win.

I agree with you on face value, off course everyone will have an opinion and so does the umpire. But I understand that not even that should be mentioned. In fact, it is probably part of the umpire job to try to block those judgments from his head, as they could influence on a given call.

But, more importantly, the problem is how the general public perceives such a statement. Even if I agree with you that this is not ultimately biased, you simply don't wanna go there, you don't need to run the risk of being misunderstood. Justice needs not to only to be just, it also needs to look just.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The main problem is that he apparently gave a dozen interviews or so. He probably got warned in between and asked to stop. Perhaps he did not and so got fired.

IMO, it should be ok for umpires to be interviewed, but there should be a two year ban on discussing specific matches. That alone make it look bland even when they talk about it.

 

[mrzz]

The main problem is that he apparently gave a dozen interviews or so. He probably got warned in between and asked to stop. Perhaps he did not and so got fired.

IMO, it should be ok for umpires to be interviewed, but there should be a two year ban on discussing specific matches. That alone make it look bland even when they talk about it.

Make it five years and we are on the exact same page.