#360view: Poor decisions cannot be ignored

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Mail
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Rough weather: Roland Garros.

    Organisers at Roland Garros have said that the tournament has not been struck with such bad weather since 1973, so it is understandable that the decision-making process when dealing with so much rain is a complicated one.

    Rain is tennis’ worst nightmare, which is why the three other grand slams invested time and money into installing at least one retractable roof on-site.

    Roland Garros is way behind when it comes to facilities, compared to the other majors, and this fortnight, it’s become glaringly obvious that a long overdue upgrade is needed.

    While the tournament goes through its legal battle with the neighborhood in order to approve the venue expansion plan, the least organisers can do right now is make fair decisions to players and spectators when it rains.

    The first time the players were brought on court on Tuesday, it was legitimately raining. I had walked from a court to the press centre as they played and I was soaked.

    Obviously players like Sam Stosur and Tsvetana Pironkova handled the conditions better to score upsets over Simona Halep and Agnieszka Radwanska, respectively, but is it fair for someone to lose a match because the ball was wet and heavier, and favoured the more powerful player?

    Is it fair that players like Halep and Radwanska, whose games rely heavily on movement, were unable to confidently slide on the clay and did not feel safe on the court? I don’t think so.

    When the majority of the players say the courts were unplayable and that they felt specific pains in their joints due to the heavy conditions then organisers should stop and listen.

    At the end of the day, the players are their main product, and when the players feel like props that don’t matter it is definitely a red flag. The tournament wanted the players to compete for more than two hours (1hr 59min is the cut off ) so as not to reimburse ticket holders.

    Unfortunately there were not subtle enough about it because they stopped play on centre court after two hours and one minute. It was raining while they were playing for most of the two hours. Guy Forget’s statement denying that money was the basis of the decision process is not believable.

    Two days earlier he said that spectators were his “main concern”. He said that if money was a factor, they would have stopped at one hour 59 minuntes, so the insurance company would reimburse the fans. Then how come they didn’t do that, since after all, spectators are supposed to be his “main concern”?

    The past two days have been tough on everyone, but they also revealed one undeniable truth: In this day in sport, it really is all about money. Tennis is no exception!

    Recommended