{"id":1208,"date":"2017-01-15T15:50:45","date_gmt":"2017-01-15T20:50:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lastwordontennis.com\/?p=1208"},"modified":"2017-01-15T15:50:45","modified_gmt":"2017-01-15T20:50:45","slug":"1208","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lastwordonsports.com\/tennis\/2017\/01\/15\/1208\/","title":{"rendered":"Grand Slams are Unfair and Something Needs to be Done"},"content":{"rendered":"

Like every other sport, tennis will never truly be fair. There will always be circumstances where certain players are left off worse than others due factors such as the weather, but the bottom line is these should be random and out of control of the organizers. Unfortunately, in our sport those aren\u2019t the only ways some are left with the shorter end of the stick. Given Majors are the pinnacle of tennis it shouldn\u2019t be like this, but unfortunately it is. With 2017\u2019s Australian Open just around the corner here are just some of the unfair ways Majors are handled, often screwing over certain players.<\/p>\n

Scheduling<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the worst of the bunch and it just shows how unfair and biased tennis organzsers are. The fact that it\u2019s possible to make the semifinals at the Australian Open without playing a night match and the semifinals at Roland Garros and Wimbledon without a match on the main court should say enough.<\/p>\n

But anyway it\u2019s worth going more in depth as this is a serious issue. There are so many examples I can use but I\u2019ll mention Wimbledon\u2019s choices in finishing matches past dark on Centre Court. In 2012, we had Kirilenko vs Radwanska moved to Centre Court and in 2015 Monfils vs Simon was completed. <\/p>\n

On the other hand, look at last year, when we had the Middle Sunday used for only the fourth time in history with Berdych beating Zverev on the day. The day after, he and Vesely went two sets all before the match was postponed due to darkness. With nothing going on Centre Court, Berdych asked for the match to be moved to Centre Court under the roof to be completed and was refused. He then had to go out the next day complete his match and play his quarterfinal the day after, playing for four straight days. Now imagine this was Murray or Federer asking for their match to be moved to be completed, would Wimbledon really say no to them?<\/p>\n

This is without even discussing the inherent unfairness of roofs. Why should the players who are lucky enough to play on a roofed court–almost always the top-seeded players–get to have their matches guaranteed played no matter what the whether, while lower-ranked players might have to sit for a full day or two if the whether is bad enough?<\/p>\n

The Courts<\/strong><\/p>\n

Only yesterday Illya Marchenko tweeted this. (https:\/\/twitter.com\/imarchello\/status\/820178804828053504<\/a>)<\/p>\n

On Monday he will take on World #1 Andy Murray on Rod Laver Arena. In the last few days Murray has already practiced on Rod Laver Arena, so why shouldn\u2019t Marchenko be allowed? In fact many of those who have practiced on the main court don\u2019t even start their campaigns on it, so why should someone that does get the short end of the stick?<\/p>\n

Which brings me onto my next point. Sure Marchenko has had practice rounds on other courts, every player surely has by now, but the disparity between the outside courts and main ones at Slams is not only incredible but as if it\u2019s a completely different event. In every major we always find the court speeds of the outer courts to be faster; in some cases extremely so–like the Australian Open in 2014, when Li Na won the tournament and said\u00a0 some of the outer courts were \u201cmuch faster\u201d than the show courts. For the lower ranked players playing top players on the show courts it\u2019s a huge jump and while their opponents are used to the conditions; how can that be considered fair?<\/p>\n

Hawkeye<\/strong><\/p>\n

Every match at a Grand Slam is of equal importance. If there\u2019s a first round encounter between Djokovic and Verdasco and another between Fratangelo and Rubin, the bottom line is they\u2019re both Round 1 matches. For the biggest events in the game every singles match at majors should be played with players being treated fairly, but without Hawkeye on a majority of courts this can\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n

Just look at Wimbledon 2014, where Nick Kyrgios hit a second serve match point down which was called out against Frenchman Richard Gasquet only for Kyrgios to challenge, see the ball was in, go onto save the match point and win the match. Now imagine this was on Court 13 or something at Wimbledon, what happens? Well Gasquet wins and who knows what goes on after that? Maybe Nadal makes the quarter-finals, maybe he even goes further, but thanks to Hawkeye we got the correct result.<\/p>\n

Or we can look at the opposite scenario, at last year\u2019s US Open where young rising star Alex Zverev played Brit Dan Evans on an non-show court. Several times throughout the match the German would have questionable overrules and wrong calls against him, causing the youngster to get incredibly frustrated. If Hawkeye was there most of these issues would have never existed. Why should Hawkeye only be there for the benefit of those lucky enough to be on courts with it?<\/p>\n

If Indian Wells, an event which isn\u2019t even a Major, can afford the expense of installing Hawkeye on every court there\u2019s no reason whatsoever why every Slam can\u2019t. Either every player deserves the decency to have the right to challenge in such big events, or no one does.<\/p>\n

To conclude, these are just some of the ways Grand Slams favor some players over others in unfair ways. While there are many other reasons it\u2019s sad that such a big global sport even has the problems I mentioned to begin with. This is definitely something the Majors should strive towards yet for the most part it feels like nothing is happening.<\/p>\n

Main Photo:<\/p>\n

\n
Embed from Getty Images<\/a><\/div>\n