The unanswered question of Loyalty behind Dmitry Tursunov’s smackdown of Pete Bodo

So this was written.

 

It only makes sense that Bogomolov wants to play Davis Cup. He's got a lot to be thankful for, right?

 

The only problem is that he wants to play Davis Cup for Russia.

Yep. The Russia from which his father, well-known coach Alex Bogomolov Sr. (who worked with, among others, Yevgeny Kafelnikov and Andrei Medvedev), fled over two decades ago in order to find greater opportunity and a more prosperous way of life. The Russia to which the older Bogomolov returned (leaving his family behind) in 2003, because he didn't find happiness amid the palm trees and abundant tennis courts of south Florida. Alex and son have had a strained relationship; it's better now, partly because Bogomolov's present ranking (a career-high No. 33) gained him direct entry into two ATP events in Russia in recent weeks—nice work from a guy who couldn't survive qualifying to make the main draw of the Australian Open at the beginning of this year.

 

Bogomolov Jr., who has dual citizenship, did well in his homeland—he was a quarterfinalist in Moscow (lost to Viktor Troicki) and a semifinalist in St. Petersburg (lost to Janko Tisparevic). He also re-connected with his dad, although Bogomolov admits that he still won't speak with his dad after a loss—only if he wins. You might think Bogomolov Jr. would see the way all the help and support he received here has been instrumental in his success, especially after his father left. And you'd think he'd be aware of the role that help played in this apparent semi-reconciliation with his dad. In fact, there may not be a more appropriate way for Bogomolov to quietly close this somewhat strange and painful narrative than by representing his adopted homeland on some tennis court.

 

Which is why Bogomolov's intentions just don't make sense to me. All I can think is that Junior wants to play Davis Cup for Russia because, in some bizarre way, he still wants craves the approval of his dad (what better way to earn it than by playing Davis Cup for Russia?), or perhaps he just wants to one-up his dad, rub his nose in the success he's enjoyed without support from his semi-famous father—what better way to demonstrate that Senior made a big mistake abandoning his family and giving up on Junior? But the Bogomolovs' family issues are of lesser interest to me than the fact that he's brazenly gaming the system. All other things aside, the word "ingrate" comes to mind.

 

-- Pete Bodo, Tennis.com

 

Following which this happened.




Further words were exchanged with tennis illuminati.



Twitter silliness ensued.

You get the idea.

[WARNING: This is not a blog smackdown of Pete Bodo. I even get uncomfortably close to agreeing with him at one point. Caution is advised as this has been known to to induce seizure in some]

-- The Devils advocate in me wants to point out that Bogo shouldn't be surprised his choices ruffled a few American feathers.

-- I’m not even sure I disagree with Bodo on the issue of loyalty (though players switching nationalities, indeed, countries poaching players, is hardly something that began yesterday)

-- I only wish he hadn’t brought Bogo’s dad into it – Bodo would still be treated with the customary contempt we’re all used to (“trendy”, kneejerk contempt I don’t always agree with), but it might then at least be considered (or ridiculed) on merit alone.

-- As it stands, Bodo has shot himself in the foot and given his detractors a reason to shoot him in the other one. He should know by now they don’t usually need one.

-- Family is generally off limits at the best of times. Family strife – unless that strife forces its way into the public eye the way Damir Dokic did (in which case it BECOMES the story) – most definitely is.

-- With that in mind, it’s really quite shabby dragging in someone’s difficult family circumstances – a situation Dima rightly points out Bodo knows nothing about – into the making of a point which could be argued either way.

-- Dare I say it, the article has the air of the type of Cold War antagonism you sometimes continue to hear from people “of a certain age”. The type of people that are noticeably less scornful when it’s their own country doing the poaching, as some argue the US did with Andrea Collarini.

--  I’m not sure that’s so very deserving of the respect Cronin insists upon, much as I agree with the idea that the experience and wisdom that supposedly comes with age doesn’t always get the respect that it is due.

-- But returning to playing devils advocate again, I still don’t think Bogo should be surprised his actions caused annoyance. And I don’t think anyone else should either.

-- I get that articles about “milk maids” invite ridicule, but don’t let’s use Bodo’s blunder as a smokescreen to evade tackling a thorny issue – even (and especially) when it’s more fun to ridicule.

 

-- Believe it or not, there’s a perfectly valid argument to be made in favour of loyalty, whatever you might think of Bodo and whatever his prejudices may or may not be. Players are, of course, free to jump ship and countries will continue to poach, but they shouldn’t expect to emerge from it smelling of roses.

Read More...

USO: Week one Round Up

1) “The match that must not be named”

This one was so bad I still have hangover as I write this.



Quite baffling to realise that up until this match I hadn’t seen very much of Robin Haase. I knew he was an edgy, flamboyant talent who’d been sidelined rather a lot by injury. Beyond that I had heard murmurings of his being a head case.

I now want to “unsee” him.

Not that Murray has anything to be proud of. Nothing these two can do will ever live this down.

We don’t need to analyse  sh*t like this unless we’re interested in what happens when the laws of nature and the moral fabric of the universe break down.

What happened in Ashe stays in Ashe.

2) “Donald not-so-Young”

I suspect my perspective on Donald Young’s journey (there’s a euphemism)  is somewhat different to most Americans. I’ve heard of the brattiness, the run-ins with the USTA, the complexities arising from his parental coaching relationship, of course, but it seems the impression left by this simply hasn’t been as affecting as it has for many on the other side of the pond. Only natural.



Most of the time I simply couldn’t care less, figuring he’s either not worth bothering with or will come of age in his own time.

Amongst other things, this meant I was prepared to vouch for his game without having to disentangle myself from the politics and the snark that I guess is part and parcel of following (and being let down by)  a home grown talent – especially one that makes life so difficult for himself. What I don’t understand is snark for the sake of snark, particularly when it comes from those without any such domestic ties.

When he beat Murray earlier this year, he was mostly derided as ‘Donald Duck’. And Murray was ripped on for losing to ‘Donald Duck’. Few seemed to think it might have had anything to do with his game. 

He didn’t follow up. Very few expected him to. Heavens knows if he’ll do it this time  – I’m not completely sold on the “kid grew up” narrative, he may simply have had another good week. Besides, a 32-year old grinder isn’t the strongest competition.

But that defeat of Murray wasn’t a fluke. And neither is what we’ve seen this past week. And if (heaven forbid) he goes on to beat Murray again in R4, that won’t have been a fluke either.


3) “Dearth, not Death”

If you’ve been paying attention recently, you’ll have heard rather a lot on how tennis is supposed to be “dead” in all of the Grand Slam hosting nations, with the exception, I guess, of France. 




I’m not gonna argue with that. That GB, Aus and the US are going through something of a dry spell talent-wise is common knowledge. Most of what you hear about it, however, is little more than blather. The kind of lazy, cliched blather that more usually goes along with talk of grunting, fist-pumping, and the rankings system.

A dearth is not the quite the same as death: of the 4 American WTA teenyboppers making noise this week, only one, Madison Keys, is ranked outside of the top 400 – two  others are ranked in the top 100 (McHale at #55) with Sloane Stephens hovering just outside at #106.

Were they not to have made a splash this week, were you not nerdy enough to know their rankings and were you to have gone on headlines alone, you simply wouldn’t have known that.

4) Venus Williams

By now we will all have heard that Sjogrens Syndrome is a chronic auto-immune disorder in which the white cells attack the body’s own moisture producing glands. Symptoms include debilitating fatigue and joint pain.

We also know that there is no cure.



With a diagnosis as sobering as that, “Get Well Soon” well-wishes can seem woefully inadequate. A quick Wikipedia search will tell you that you don’t always “get well” from something like this – “symptom management” sometimes being the only option.

Venus has been an iconic feature of the tennis landscape for over a decade.

There’ll be hordes of melancholic fans whenever her career comes to end, whether that’s through ill health or it simply running its course.

Worth remembering, however, that we know next to nothing on how acutely she’s affected. Auto immune illnesses usually have a wide range of severity. Let us hope her case is moderate.

The other thing is that “symptom management” is not always as dreadful as it sounds.  True that this can entail coping with, rather than freeing oneself of, a chronic illness – but it’s also true that the effects of that illness may be mitigated by lifestyle adjustment in less severe cases.

The real question is whether that’s sufficient to compete as an elite athlete in the sport she loves. Doubtless many will desire precisely that. But like a certain 22-time Slam Champion says, her first priority must be to regain her health – with or without tennis. No true fan should wish for anything less.


5) Li No and Petra KvitOver

Never have I felt so wrong about being right :(


Anyone that had been following both players this past year knew there would be a certain amount of “decompression” following their respective Slam epiphanies. My own view was that they were unlikely to reach the quarters and would probably end up going out in an unspectacular tussle in some forgotten corner of week one.

Yes they're both hit and miss. Yes they're both still reeling from the after effects of winning a Slam. Still, a first round exit for two top 10 Grand Slam Champs is unacceptable.


6) Serena v Vika – Match of the tournament.

The first set of this was Serena at her uber-intimidating best. As always, she was out to make a statement – Vika was mere collateral damage and barely managed one game.


The second set was likely the best you’ll see over the entire fortnight.

Some of Vika’s returns of serve may well go on to be remembered as the best tennis of her career. As always her fans are left to rue the fact that where others get serendipity, Vika gets…Serena Williams.

Try and think of the first player that came to mind as drawing the short straw when Serena’s #28 seeding was announced…..YEAH.

No, it doesn’t even surprise me anymore.
Read More...

A Very International Affair...

This last week all the publicity seems to be over Davis Cup so lets get that out of the way to begin with.
Let me state right out that historically I haven't been a great fan of Davis Cup. To me it always seemed to be operating at a level below the main tour - a poor relation of the premier ATP events.
Its detractors have various theories as to why this is the case, but even ardent fans sometimes agree that it can be difficult to muster up the same level of interest and passion without the involvement of the top players.
Still I'm beginning to be won over as we've had some very decent matchups this year - in particular France v US earlier in April and of course Spain v US this last weekend.

There was little doubt that Spain would win last weekend, but I was pleased to see competitive matches between Roddick and Ferrer and particularly between Querrey and Nadal - I mean most people probably wrote the guy off the second the draw was released. The fact that he was able to take a set off of Nadal in what must have seemed the most imbalanced of matchups (on clay against arguably the greatest clay courter of all time backed by a partisan Spanish crowd in a Madrid bullring - I mean Querrey must have thought 'Are you guys kidding with this setup!?') bodes well for his future.
He held his own and even though he lost the other sets, didn't appear to wilt.
Against Nadal, Roddick unfortunately got a dose of what Federer experienced at this years French Open Final - that he got the crowd on his side albeit for a fleeting moment (best moment of 2008?), was amongst the few positives that he could draw from this encounter.

I guess thats what rescues Davis Cup for me: the atmosphere. The crowd and the antics of the players' bench really do make this event something special, however I'm still not completely sold: for every matchup like last weekend we also have debacles like Great Britain v Austria - only Andy Murray's involvement in that fiasco prevented it from being a complete write off.
Read More...