There’s an interesting story coming out of the Luxembourg Open today, following Caroline Wozniacki’s first round retirement (hamstring) against local gal Anne Kremer on Tuesday. Wozniacki was up 7-5, 5-0 when she tapped out, offering this explanation later:
“I could possibly have finished the match, but felt there was no way I could get ready for the second round on Thursday, so I chose the sporting way and let her go through. She’s also [playing] at home,” Wozniacki told Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet. (via tennis.com)
Reportedly, it was Wozniacki’s father and coach who recommended the “sporting way” during an on court coaching session at 3-0 in the second set:
“I said to her, ‘Caroline, whether it is 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2 at the next change of ends, you have to decide if you will be able to play the next match. Then make the right decision. I have spoken to the tournament director, who spoke to the WTA, who was also at the match. They all said Caroline showed a lot of sportsmanship.” (via tennis.com)
But the WTA is reviewing tape of the match for any suspicious activity (the Daily Mirror is calling it a “probe”) mostly due to online betting concerns. Here’s the explanation via The Globe and Mail:
The catch about the televised courtside chat in Polish was that one viewer understood what was said. Realizing Wozniacki would stop in two more games at 5-0 ahead, the person was able to alert bettors to the opportunity to make money on Kremer, which reportedly some people did on the Betfair.com website.
Piotr Wozniacki is reportedly “amazed” by the fuss, saying: “That (betting) can never be Caroline’s or my responsiblity… [It's like] Lotto. You take the risk.“ (via tennis.com)
I agree with Mr. Wozniacki that the players should not and can not concern themselves with how their actions may impact online betting (unless, of course, they are being paid or otherwise coerced.) But obviously this type of thing worries the sport’s governing bodies. I know, how about we do away with the on-court coaching rule? It’s the one situation where I’d support caving to the bookies.
And what do you think of the “sportsmanship” defense of Caroline’s retirement? I can see why the Wozniackis would think it was a nice thing to do, but I still think it stinks. If you can physically finish a match you should, no matter who your opponent is or what the home crowd and the tournament director may prefer. Once you start making these kinds of calculations (or letting your dad make them for you) things get sticky – as Caroline has discovered.
Tags: Luxembourg Open, tennis, Wozniacki, WTA
RELATED ARTICLES ON GOTOTENNIS |
Loading ...
Hopefully Wozniacki doesn’t become the next Davydenko…
I’m willing to believe that the betting angle is accidental, and that Caro was trying to be nice and help out a local player. But I think it’s condescending to default a match when you’re up 5-0 in the deciding set. Sort of like, “here you go, I’m giving you a victory, isn’t that nice of me? Especially since you can’t do it on your own, against an injured opponent?”
Yes, Liz! That’s exactly the word I was looking for – condescending. Do it after the first set, maybe, but when you’re one game away from victory?
Of course we do always get on players for retiring when they’re losing, too. So I guess I just hate retirements, period. Unless you really, truly can’t finish the match. And Caroline, herself, said that she probably could have finished.
I like Caroline but I don’t think this is sportsmanship either. Stink!
It’s understandable that she quit at any stage but please don’t ask for ‘credit’. You can quit for whatever reasons (I’m bored, I’m tired, I’m lazy today), just not because it’s nice thing to do. It’s not rhyme.
Yeah, how strange to stress the “sportsmanship” angle when she could have just said: “I was in agony and couldn’t continue.” It’s very bizarre and it bothers me probably more than it should
Hi,
I think there’s a real difference between Caroline saying she ‘possibly’ and ‘probably’ could have finished. One seems a lot more condescending than the other. I don’t really agree that a player should always complete a match in the case that they know they will not be able to compete in the next round. It seems kinda dysfunctional to take somebody out of the draw to hand someone else a walkover.
You have a great blog.
Interesting. Has anything like this happened before? At first I thought that Caroline retired when she was one game away from LOSING. Then I realized that she actually had the game in the bag but retired to give her losing opponent the pass to the next round.
It’s kind of a confusing situation. I mean, should it be the right of a player to forfeit a match even though they could continue? My thought always was, if you step out on court, you do everything you can to win. If you are so injured that you cannot continue, you can retire. BUT, if the match is almost over, and you’re only a game or two away from defeat, you should just hold on until the match is over so that your opponent has his/her victory.
I’ve always thought that, and this may be because its what Rafa taught me, that you honor your opponent by doing everything you can to COMPLETE the match. Even though Rafa takes this to a whole other level (SO many examples of him obviously in pain but still willing to complete the match and take the defeat, I never thought I’d actually have to yell at the TV because a play WOULDN’T retire!).
Obviously everyone is different and has their own points of view and character (not to mention their own various level’s of tolerance for pain!) But I don’t know if I agree with this.
But I’m not sure I disagree either.
On one hand, it goes against everything a competitor’s spirit stands for: You fight till you can’t fight anymore. You live in the moment and do everything you can to win. THEN you think about the next match.
But on the other hand, she felt that she COULDN’T have played her next match. So if she chose to beat her opponent (whom I feel doesn’t deserve to win this match due to RET. because It’s not like the match was even CLOSE). Her next opponent (who actually WON her match) would’ve benefited from a Walkover if Caroline finished this match. I’m sure her next round opponent would have considered THAT to be good sportsmanship. By doing what she did, she gave what would’ve been the loser a second opportunity to advance in the tournament.
Is that good sportsmanship? I don’t know. I’m going to think about it. But from what I know, I don’t think it is.
P.S. I absolutely HATE the on-court coaching rule. If there’s one thing that is condescending and chauvinistic, it’s that! Absolutely HATE it!
I think it is absolutely ridiculous to retire when you’re winning and you still can play… especially how things were going in the second set.
If I were Anne Kremer I would be outraged! I mean, it is ok to retire against someone but in this particular case for me it was like: OK, I’ve demonstrated that I can beat you even if I’m injured… so, after being sure that I made my point (5-0) I retire so you can have another match at home. Please thank me!
Hi all – thanks for all your comments. I see that most of us are in agreement that the on-court coaching rule stinks. So the fans don’t like it, the press hates it, and the players say it stinks (though they use it so as not to lose an advantage) – why the heck does the WTA insist on keeping it? Blech!
Oh, and I’d like to stress how strange I think it is that Wozniacki’s dad/coach was the one to encourage her to retire. Shouldn’t that be the player’s sole decision? Sheesh, the girls can’t even make that call on their own anymore? Pathetic.
I think Caroline did the right thing. It was a sporting gesture to let her opponent go through knowing she would not be able to compete in the next round.
If people want to bet on matches it is up to them. Player’s have no responsibility towards them.
I agree with Mim – re: Rafa of the highest principles, play for the honor of your opponent and the tournament – don’t drop out 1 game from winning if you can still walk or hit the ball, and then say I was being a good sport. If she had been losing it would be different. Totally wrong in my view.
The cleanest and the most honest way is to try hard and play your best, as long as you are able to compete on a professional level. Even if Caroline’s intentions were pure and sincere which is probably possible, what she did is, to put it mildly, unwise and absolutely unprofessional.
The score should not be a consideration in any such decisions. And if you are able to play now, you can’t be 100% sure that you will be incapacitated tomorrow. Maybe your next opponent gets badly injured on the first point and you advance to the subsequent round by which time you recover sufficiently to play well. Who knows what may happen?
Besides, and that is quite important, every time a player does something like this, all kinds of ugly betting-related possibilities have to be investigated – and as a result, the whole sport suffers by association even if nothing criminal is found.
i think that bookies make a lot of money, and if they lose some millions, it won’t be a big problem. Caroline was doing right