Apr 22, 2022·edited Apr 22, 2022Liked by Matthew Willis
This comment is benefiting from coming after your thoughtful post, Matthew. Per Chris Clarey and Ana Mitric, Andrei Rublev says players (or, just him, it's not totally clear) offered to donate their prize money from playing as an alternative to the ban. This seems like a good idea, to me, but perhaps there are mitigating circumstances I don't see right now.
At any rate it would avoid one hitch in the ban's consequences I've yet to see mentioned anywhere: banned players will lose both points that drop off and the chance to replenish points. From the perspective of their "jobs" that's more consequential than prize money, at least for the top earners.
That's a thoughtful post. As Matthew states, there is no obviously wrong or right answer here, and I'm glad he raised the thorny topic of Western countries blithely ignoring their own aggression. If you were going to extend this argument to its logical conclusion, no player from any nation would be allowed to play.
Sadly, I think Wimbledon and the LTA have got this wrong. If anything, it plays into the "them against us" message that Putin is so effectively pedalling. It punishes individuals who are probably (but who really knows) scared to speak out, and if I was in Rublev's shoes, or Sabalenka's, then I would be angry.
In the end, though, it's a tiny gesture that will hurt some individuals but will also offer some solace to the Ukranian players - and people - who will be feeling the weight of silence from elsewhere.
So, like Matt, I end up conflicted. I feel sympathy for the affected players, and sorry for the paying public who will miss out on the brilliance of Medvedev etc, but equally feel that Ukranian players need to feel supported by the authorities.
Ultimately I think the LTA has made a mistake (as do others I spoke to at my local club last night). I understand what it was trying to do but an outright ban is not the way to do it.
This comment is benefiting from coming after your thoughtful post, Matthew. Per Chris Clarey and Ana Mitric, Andrei Rublev says players (or, just him, it's not totally clear) offered to donate their prize money from playing as an alternative to the ban. This seems like a good idea, to me, but perhaps there are mitigating circumstances I don't see right now.
At any rate it would avoid one hitch in the ban's consequences I've yet to see mentioned anywhere: banned players will lose both points that drop off and the chance to replenish points. From the perspective of their "jobs" that's more consequential than prize money, at least for the top earners.
That's a thoughtful post. As Matthew states, there is no obviously wrong or right answer here, and I'm glad he raised the thorny topic of Western countries blithely ignoring their own aggression. If you were going to extend this argument to its logical conclusion, no player from any nation would be allowed to play.
Sadly, I think Wimbledon and the LTA have got this wrong. If anything, it plays into the "them against us" message that Putin is so effectively pedalling. It punishes individuals who are probably (but who really knows) scared to speak out, and if I was in Rublev's shoes, or Sabalenka's, then I would be angry.
In the end, though, it's a tiny gesture that will hurt some individuals but will also offer some solace to the Ukranian players - and people - who will be feeling the weight of silence from elsewhere.
So, like Matt, I end up conflicted. I feel sympathy for the affected players, and sorry for the paying public who will miss out on the brilliance of Medvedev etc, but equally feel that Ukranian players need to feel supported by the authorities.
Ultimately I think the LTA has made a mistake (as do others I spoke to at my local club last night). I understand what it was trying to do but an outright ban is not the way to do it.
Thorough and rational as per usual. Loving my subscription!
I disagree with about 10-20% of this but this was generally phenomenal analysis, thank you.