WHO YA GOT? THE CHAMPIONSHIPS, WIMBLEDON 2022

 My tennis buddy TW Master Ace reminded me today that Rybakina was playing very well pre-covid.  I then recalled that were it not for COVID and lockdowns she would have already been the first player male or female from Kazakhstan to be in the final of a Major. 

I wondered if Ons Jabeur, she of the wildcards for tournaments in Doha and Dubai, would ever make the most of her talent.  Known for her trick shots, slices, drop shots and generally unfit, it appears Jabeur decided that enough was enough. It was no longer enough for her to just be happy playing, Jabeur decided to set actual goals and has accomplished them.  

On Saturday 9 July 2022 Elena Rybakina and Ons Jabeur will play for the Venus Rosewater Dish at The Championships, Wimbledon. I can't wait. 

Women's tennis has always been at the forefront of change and this weekend's upcoming final charts a new beginning for the continent of Africa. 

Ons Jabeur. African.  Tunisian.  Muslim.  Wimbledon finalist.  I don't think many of us when we saw the draw ever thought one of sport's most elitist tournaments would have on its hallowed Centre Court,  a woman who keeps Ramadan, and who hails from a country that worships Allah.  It shows that change happens, even if it happens slowly. 

And what about Rybakina?  Born in Russia, Rybakina chose to play for Kazhakstan due to financial challenges that she experienced. However, she has struggled to make a name for herself.  A huge game but a pretty shy personality, she came to the attention of Slam tennis watchers when she took out Serena Williams at the French Open in 2021.  There are those of us who knew how dangerous Rybakina could be and understood that this version of Serena would have a hard time dealing with the pace that comes off Rybakina's racquet.  The scoreline [6-3, 7-5] told the tale.  Her lack of consistency, coupled with poor movement, especially up the court, will make for a hard time against Jabeur. Jabeur will be using every trick in the book to ensure that Rybakina bends those knees to go after her wicked short slices or race after her drop shots. 

However, Jabeur will first have to overcome the pace of shot that will be coming from Rybakina's racquet.  As we saw in her match against Halep, a player known for absorbing pace, there was absolutely nothing that Halep could do against Rybakina who has been on during this whole tournament. 

It will be a match of contrasts.  Big hitting shy young woman against a wily extroverted game changer. 

Spin's Pick:  Jabeur in 3 tough sets

WHO OR WHAT GOVERNS POPULARITY?

Tennis Twitter is always a very special place to be. Before there was tennis twitter, there were blogs where one could go and become a keyboard warrior. Then there were sites (Tennis Forum/General Messages anyone?) where there were long threads discussing who or who was not popular or marketable in tennis. I have been thinking about this phenomenon for quite some time. I have some thoughts.

 For years, Wall Street and tennis journalists, who are paid to upsell players, told us that the Williams Sisters were not popular. According to them, Sharapova was the most popular player in tennis because of her marketability. They spoke ad nauseam about her endorsement deals. She was always the blonde, blue-eyed girl featured on magazines. For them, Sharapova was objectively the most beautiful. I did not mind because, aside from the doping scandal that became known late in her career, she knew how to step up on the big stages and win. 

 Still, despite the Williams Sisters also winning on the court, advertisers and marketing folks claimed they didn’t possess the IT factor, which begs the question: what are the qualities that makes a player stand out and attract marketing dollars?

 There was a time when Justine Henin was touted as the face of tennis (yes, you can stop laughing).  She had an aesthetically pleasing game (meaning she could hit a slice backhand), she was non-controversial (forget that 2003 French Open hand) and she did not grunt.  Yet, while Henin was racking up big titles, the media mostly focused on her fellow Belgian, Kim Clijsters. To them, Clijsters was the girl next door.  So what if she complained every day about injuries and the rigours of life on Tour? Players sympathized with her and found her more relatable than they did Henin. 

 In the early 90s, the player who got most of the significant write up was Steffi Graf. She did not love the limelight, but she won big tournaments and had an aesthetically pleasing game. Her nemesis during that time was Seles.  Seles was a grunter and a big hitter of the ball.  I don’t recall if she garnered much in the way of endorsements, except for this American Express ad. So, even though Seles was the dominant player, few people saw her as marketable compared to Graf. Oddly enough, Seles was one of Venus Williams’ favorites to watch because of her brashness and boldness on court. I wonder why she wasn’t deemed marketable along with her on-court dominance?

 In more recent history, Simona Halep is without a doubt a very successful player.  2 Grand Slam titles, a stint at number one, nice eyes, and a celebrity coach in her corner in Darren Cahill.  I don’t believe Halep garnered much in the way of sponsorship aside from being hailed a hero in her home country. There was little talk of her being able to move product. While I recall people saying that of Genie Bouchard, who is now only known for two things: suing and winning against the USTA and have her status of active or retired being a constant question. Marketers immediately saw Bouchard as being able to move product despite achieving very little in terms of her tennis compared to Halep.  

 Lastly, we come to the recently retired Ashleigh Barty.  Now, if there was ever a player who has seemingly done little to promote the sport of tennis outside of Australia, or indeed been a marketer's dream, it would be Barty. For someone like me who is a huge fan of the women's game, there were times when I literally had to pull up the WTA website to recall who was number 1 during her reign. Farewell Barty, we barely knew you.  However, as a player, she rarely had a challenger on court. Barty, much like many of the women in the recent top 10 have for one reason or another failed to capture the public’s attention or imagination. Like many of their predecessors, they may achieve great things on court but marketers do not come to their door. Clearly, for women, marketing has less to do with your tennis prowess and more to do with whether you fit other people’s idea of what it means to be a woman or an athlete.

 Naomi Osaka could easily be the marriage of both on-court dominance and off-court marketing gold. Yet, she seems to be struggling to manage both. As marketable as she may be, I doubt that Osaka will ever feel confident enough to be the face of tennis and women's tennis. 

 The new World No. 1 as of Monday next will be Iga Swiatek.  A young Pole who plays fierce tennis and who lists her tennis idol as Rafael Nadal (go equality).  The argument in tennis circles is that Emma Raducanu has outpaced Iga in terms of marketing while achieving relatively little in her career. As I have shown already, on-court dominance has rarely had much to do with marketability for women players. Emma’s case is particularly easy to understand.  Well, for one Emma is from the UK- a country with a very rich tennis history who is eager to keep that crown.  Duh. In addition, even if folks do not like to admit it, she did win a Major without dropping a set while also playing qualifying. That’s one for the history books. Frankly, Emma is to the UK what Osaka is to Japan (and the US as well).  She is of mixed heritage, which means advertisers and marketers get a two-fer.  Meanwhile, Iga does not seem to rate as possessing anything to captivate a buying public’s fantasy. Maybe if she was taller, blonde or spoke less about her mental challenges?

 One thing is clear; the issue of popularity is a very complicated one because it is not necessarily objective. While Barty might not have been particularly marketable, she was very effective at putting seats in the stands. Whether that is because of her no-nonsense playing style or the fact that she is from a country, that is English speaking or that she is a "nice" girl, folks just warmed to her. The same goes for Leylah Fernandez, a player that fired up New York during 7 rounds of tennis at the US Open.  Leylah continues to have a following even though she lost in New York City. Just watch any of her matches in Mexico.  She plays fearless tennis for someone so small and you just want to root for her. As fans, she is a welcome sight.  For me, Raducanu not so much. It feels like Raducanu is more of a marketer’s dream of a tennis player than someone who draws fans in by virtue of her on-court play. Where have we seen that before?

 Still none of this will matter very much if we do not deal with the issue of accessibility of the women's Tour.  Earlier in the season when there were no WTA tournaments, I decided to tune in to the ATP and see what was happening.  I don't have a subscription to TennisTV, but on my local ESPN, I found men's tennis.  Two courts from tournaments in Argentina and Brazil. I was able to watch the farewell tournament for Del Potro. I came away from both tournaments becoming a fan of Diego Schwartzman.  

 For me, that is the WTA's biggest issue, not who happens to be popular this week or this month.  Yes, there is WTATV, but it is not a user-friendly platform.  How is it possible that in this day and age you literally have the biggest women's sport in the world providing live streaming via a web portal that is as clunky and inefficient as the WTA's own website?! 

 If you can't see players and become fans of their games, why would I spend money to watch them live?  Why are tournaments being played that are not being carried live on the WTA's own streaming platform? Why is it that when matches are being played, unless some controversy erupts there is little or no commentary on social media apart from giving scores, which is few and far between?

 In order for players to capture the imagination of fans and make us want more, there has to be a certain je ne sais quoi. A little something different.  It is not always about the tennis.  In these days, people can tune out, but if we give them something a little bit more, they will come. In the words of Jimmy Connors "this is what they came for". 

 

PRIVILEGE AND THE PRESS & VICE VERSA

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This bit from Naomi Osaka stands out, on talking to the media: &quot;I know it&#39;s to grow the sport and all these amazing things but at some point I also feel like talking to us is a privilege&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Dx5TOddKli">https://t.co/Dx5TOddKli</a></p>&mdash; Simon Cambers (@scambers73) <a href="https://twitter.com/scambers73/status/1432403409282469894?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 30, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

A long time ago before there was social media, as a tennis fan, the only interaction I had with tennis was reading Jon Wertheim's questions blog on Sports Illustrated.  As someone who didn't readily have internet access in Jamaica, as soon as I migrated and was introduced to fast internet (not dial up), every Wednesday I eagerly waited for the SI colum with Jon to come up so that I could read questions from readers to Jon about tennis players.   At that time, I did not really get a chance to watch much tennis as if you really wanted to watch a match, you literally had to find a skanky stream on livesport or someone on some chat room would post a live stream which was perhaps infected with viruses.  That is how much we loved the sport. 

I recall writing in my questions and it was a joy to see my name published with my question and a response from Jon.  To this day, Jon Wertheim remains one of my fave tennis journalists (even if I have not forgiven him for the low rent comment). 

Fast forward and now we have social media.  We have Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.  There is also a multitude of other platforms, some of which I have never heard of.  I still try and read Jon Wertheim's column, but I do find it hard to find it what with the death of Sports Illustrated and Jon's move to Tennis Channel. 

Why am I writing all of this?  I saw a comment attributed to Naomi Osaka recently about the privilege that the media should have in having the ability to speak to tennis players.  I know that these days the herd thing is to denigrate the media, after all, they have not really covered themselves in glory, but I find that particularly comment quite galling.  

One of the ways in which I came to love and admire many tennis players that I have never had the chance to watch play was by going through the archives of the New York Times, Sports Illustrated and many other newspapers to find out what was written then, read the comments from fans and then get the opportunity to form my own opinion.  A case in point, I never knew about the reason why Serena and Venus never played Indian Wells until I read Jon Wertheim's column from way back when.  

I don't follow a lot of celebrities on social media as frankly they are always selling something.  You never get to connect with them because you don't know whether the person who is managing the social media of X player is actually X or some person assisting X to sell something.  For that reason I don't mind the press conference.  I like the fact that real journalists get an opportunity to ask questions, and players have to think about a response or in some cases mail in a response to a question that they find difficult to answer. 

The press conference provides a way for the athlete to respond to issues that they may not be comfortable with, and as they have their own agency, they can decline to answer a question on the spot.  It is their right.  But to say that the media should feel privileged to sit in a room with someone whose job it is to play tennis is taking this to a level of ultimate disrespect. 

If the quote as mentioned above is correct (and again, the media has not covered itself in glory in bringing us the news), I think it is a comment that is in poor taste and whomever is advising Ms. Osaka should have her clarify her comment as soon as possible. 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - LIFE'S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

Despite my better judgment I went ahead and read the piece written by Ben Rothenberg regarding the allegations made by Olga Sharipova against her now ex boyfriend Alexander Zverev. I won't go into the meat of that article but I do have some views on the issue of domestic violence and how we should treat both the person who has allegedly suffered domestic violence and the alleged perpetrators of domestic violence. For starters, I should point out that I am writing this article from 3 viewpoints: 

(1) I am a survivor of domestic violence, both of an emotional and physical nature. 

(2) I work alongside my local Crisis Centre and Legal Befrienders. 

(3) I am heavily involved in counselling victims of domestic violence, their partners and whole families. 

Mr. Zverev has been accused of domestic abuse. Those are serious, life changing and in some cases career ending allegations. When a woman who has been in a long standing relationship with a man who is emotionally abusive, it is hard for her to break free. In the same breath, a man who is in a relationship where he controls all aspects of the relationship may not be aware that he is emotionally abusing his partner. 

Mr. Zverev is a professional athlete. In the grand scheme of things this might not matter much, but like most professional athletes, their mental state is that this job is all about me. Everyone else, from coaches, to the wellness team to even the sports management body. It is all about what is best for the athlete in order that he or she can perform at an optimum level. Simple things like a coach carrying the racquet bag of a player after practice or walking around picking up balls. All of this is so that the athlete. The earner. The person whose job it is to go out there and perform can actually go out there and perform. The role of a wife and girlfriend in this scenario is no different. Wives and girlfriends (and husbands too) are there to cheer from the sidelines and ensure that the athlete receives all the support that they can give. 

Most of us who are on the outside looking in think that this is a cut and dried situation, but it isn't. In my experience, many women in situations such as Ms. Sharipova's are not aware that they are active participants in an abusive relationship. Many people will read this and call it victim blaming. They will ask: Why did she not leave? Why did she not report it? These are reasonable questions to ask because most people like to believe they are in control of their own lives and make their own decisions. However, it can be hard to see when things are going horribly wrong in a relationship. Often those in the relationship try to salvage it by any means necessary and actively want to still maintain the relationship. 

In this particular case, Ms. Sharipova attempted to commit suicide on more than one occasion by injecting herself with insulin, despite not being a diabetic. The fact that Mr. Zverev found her and saved her life probably made her think, yes, he does love me and this relationship can be saved. Even though this may strike us as a strange course of action or reasoning from the outside, we do not know the dynamics that existed between the couple. Mr. Zverev, from those of us looking on from the outside, seems to deal with his now ex-girlfriend in a way that we would term to be abusive or disrespectful. But again, we do not know the language and expectations of this couple. Possibly, in his mind, he is the one who is earning money and taking care of her. He might believe he needs to perform for the media and for his career and it is Ms. Sharipova's role to support him all the time. His anger at her leaving the house to go and get her hair done is a perfect example of that type of thinking. 

Does this excuse his behavior? Likely not, but there are two people in this relationship and they have established patterns that neither you nor I know about or are likely to feel comfortable imitating. Persons who are looking from the outside into this relationship and seeing it from the lens presented by the journalist, Mr. Rothenberg are judging Mr. Zverev's behavior without getting the full picture. What was the nature of their relationship? What were the terms of the relationship? In speaking with families in crisis, whether it be visiting relationships or otherwise, one has to try very hard to obtain both sides of a story. Because, as difficult as it may be for us to understand, some people want to stay together and some may decide to part ways. We do not get to decide that for either party. 

Right now Mr. Zverev is losing the publicity angle on this situation. Calls are being made to his governing body, the ATP to do something. On a legal basis, what exactly is the ATP supposed to be doing? There are no criminal charges that have been filed. No civil suit has been instituted and even if there were criminal charges filed or a civil suit, until Mr. Zverev has been found guilty, there is literally nothing that the ATP can do (see Justin Gimelstob for reference). 

Domestic violence is a serious issue. There are many layers of the situation that have not been brought to life. This series of articles from Ms. Sharipova, while generating an enormous amount of sympathy, will not give her what she most wants, which I believe is to be back with Mr. Zverev. This might be off-putting for some of us to read, but it is important that we recognize that this is about what she wants, not necessarily what we want for her. 

We have to allow her her own agency, even if we disagree. Still, I am hopeful that during the series of discussions that the journalist had with Ms. Sharipova, that he at least took the time to suggest that she receive counselling. 

I truly believe that this situation has no winners but everyone loses. Ms. Sharipova loses by not getting what she truly desires. Mr. Zverev through the damage to his reputation, which will be there until the end of his career. 

It is unfortunate.

WOMEN'S SEMIFINAL - WIMBLEDON

 As I am writing this piece, Ashleigh Barty of Australia, the world's No. 1 ranked player in the world, a player of Aboriginal descent has just made her way into the finals of The Championships at Wimbledon and I am sitting here seething in rage at Chris Evert and Chris Fowler as they continue to use the term "walkabout" to describe Ms. Barty's lapse during certain points in the match.

I tweeted earlier tagging Ms. Evert in my tweet and using the hashtag that was coined for Ms. Evert to let her know that using the term walkabout to describe Ms. Barty was offensive.  Various users on Twitter informed me that at the start of the match, her fellow commentator, Chris Fowler also used the opportunity to use the word walkabout in describing Ms. Barty.

At a time when ESPN is being shown to have issues as it relates to diversity (see Rachel Nichols and Maria Taylor), it would have been good if the powers that be had taken both Chrises into a room with a Wikepedia page and let them know just how wrong it is to use this form of language and how hurtful it can be to Ms. Barty.  This year we are being told that the dress that Ms. Barty is wearing is her clothing sponsor's way of paying homage to another Aboriginal, Ms. Evonne Goolagong who won The Championships 50 years ago this year. 

How hurtful must it be for Ms. Goolagong, a woman who has paved the way for Aboriginal persons to listen to a young player's lapses being termed as walkabout.

For those who do not have access to Wikipedia, a quick Google search turned up this article

https://www.outdoorrevival.com/old-ways/walkabout-aboriginal-australian-hike-serves-rite-passage.html

A walkabout is a rite of passage which is of a spiritual nature. As a result of Western culture using it in a disparaging and disrespectful manner, the Aboriginal peoples have had to cease using the word to describe a part of their culture and heritage.  How absolutely shameful is this.

As a woman of colour and a Jamaican living in a land that is not of my birth, I hear so many remarks being made about Jamaicans on a whole.  The most famous is that Jamaicans love to smoke weed and there was the time when someone said that Jamaicans are best known for how they can use a mop (don't get me started).

ESPN commentators and frankly its not just ESPN but commentators on a whole need to do better.  I thought we had long passed the time when I had to take to my blog to talk about issues such as this, but again, it is clear the more things change, the more they remain the same.  I am exhausted by this. 

Currently watching the second semifinal.  Yet to hear the talk of Sabalenka's grunting so small mercies.  

EMBARGO THIS

 Many persons who follow me on social media do so because they know that I absolutely  love women's tennis.  I am perhaps one of the few persons who wrote extensively about the need for the WTA to have its own tv coverage so that the women could have equal footing with the men.  I tagged anyone who would listen and I have been blocked by many journalists because of my penchant for tagging them when they make silly, demeaning or just plain out of touch remarks as it relates to the women's game.  These days I don't do much writing as my work schedule has become unbelievably busy and frankly, I am exhausted.  Not by tennis but because the more things change, the more they remain the same.

I have a WTA TV subscription.  I was one of the first persons to sign up and I even did a little write up about why persons should sign up for a subscription.  I literally ditched my Samsung TV and replaced it with an LG because I realised that with the LG I could actually watch women's tennis on my tv without the need for me to stream from my phone.  Next thing on the agenda is for the WTA to develop a WTA TV app and my life will be golden.

However, this post is not about the WTA.  It is actually about Wimbledon and ESPN and the current embargo that is now in place for the women's quarter finals and I suspect the embargo will also be in place for the women's semi finals.  There is no doubt in my mind that there will be no embargo when it comes to the men's quarter finals.  After all, we do need the men to be as visible as possible.

Who benefits from embargoes?  As far as I know today is a working day for persons in the US and UK.  It is also a working day for me.  I had a public holiday yesterday (5 July) so I was able to stay home and watch all the round of 16 matches on the women's side.  The scheduling was pretty good by the Wimbledon organisers as apart from a few times where there were women's matches being played at the same time, the time factor allowed for me to watch as many of the women's matches as I could.  I applaud the schedulers for this.

However, today is a work day.  Many persons will be watching the matches on their phones via an app and today is the day that the powers that be chose to impose an embargo.  I subscribe to ESPN Play which is the ESPN that facilitates the Caribbean.  It costs a pretty penny to be able to do this as in order for you to get a sports package, you have to subscribe to channels that you don't actually need.  Sports is always placed on a higher cable package.  In order for me to get the online version of ESPN Play I have to subscribe to a sports package that has such things as the Outdoor channel which I can tell you I have never been tempted to spend more than a few seconds as I scroll to find ESPN on my  programme guide. 

Today, as I sat at my desk with my earphone plugged getting ready to watch Ons Jabeur I realised that the match was not available.  I, being smart, decided to turn on my VPN and lo and behold I was once again stymied.  I could have used my family who lives in the US log in information, but I thought to myself, why do I need to go through all that trouble just to watch a tennis match?  Why?

If you are not a die hard fan of the women's game, and let me tell you something, most of the people who do commentary on tv, are not die hard fans of the women's game.  How do I know this?  I know this because they think that some of the players who have made the second week of Wimbledon are having a break out season.  They think that this is a career defining moment for them.  They speak of persons like Sabalenka, Muchova and Badosa as if they are unknowns.  They know nothing of Ons Jabeur other than that she is from a North African country.  At least they know about her husband and the fact that he is her fitness coach.  Yaaaay. 

This is why whenever Saturday morning rolls around and you are getting ready to watch the women's final from Wimbledon, your talking points will be about Federer and Djokovic and what they bring to the game.  If Kerber makes the final, the fact that she beat Serena Williams in majors on 2 occassions will be brought up ad nauseam, because clearly Kerber has done nothing else in her career.  And don't get me started if Sabalenka gets to the final, her grunting will be a topic of conversation. If Barty manages to get to the final, I am sure somewhere they will be trotting out poor Evonne Goolagong to talk about Barty's outfit which pays homage to Goolagong's dress from 50 years ago.  Talk about a Lewinsky moment.

Women's tennis deserves better than this.  The women deserve to have their sport reach far and wide.  They deserve to have their careers discussed along the same lines as commentators do the men's.  No one shows Djokovic's wife and talks about whether she prepares his vegan meals.  No one ever focuses on Nadal's wife in the stands.  They focus on the men, the strategy that is being employed and whether or not it will work against his opponent.

Most of the matches that I have watched at this year's Wimbledon have been women's matches.  The word variation seems to be the only word that commentators can use when a player uses a slice or plays a drop shot.  I don't know whether that is variation in tennis or whether that is just a strategy that is being employed by the player.  For commentators, that seems to be the former as apparently hitting with pace just makes you one dimensional.  Go figure.

I can only hope that as the US Open rolls around later this year with stands at full capacity that commentators will do much better by the women but I am not holding my breath on that.

UPDATE:  I wrote this yesterday and neglected to post.  This morning big surprise.  There was no embargo on the men's quarter final.  I checked to see if I could watch it and lo and behold there it was.  Things that make you go Hmmmm

 

French Open Preview - Floaters and Wildcard Edition

 So the French Open is set to begin in a little over 24 hours as I write this.  I am currently sitting on my couch watching Bara v Frech battle to gain a spot in the main draw.  I have never seen Bara play or even heard of her but she is quite feisty.  Frech is also a fighter but she really does not have much with which to hurt her opponent.   I also watched this morning American Hailey Baptiste make her way into the main draw with a struggle win over Grabher who stands so far back to receive serve she was literally standing where the lines people are located.

So the draw is out and of course there are the usual hand wringing. I am not about that this year.  

One of the upsides to finally having a platform that features exclusive women's tennis is the ability to see a whole host of players that you would normally never get to watch.  As a result I have been bingeing on some really fun players and I thought that I would focus more on these for this year's French Open.  Forgive me if you have already heard about them but here are my list of Floaters and Wildcards that you should keep an eye on.  They are hungry and looking to make their mark:

Paula Badosa

Maria Osorio Serrano

Tamira Zidansek

Veronika Kudermetova

Jill Teichmann

Nadia Podoroska

Ana Konjuh

I am sure that there are more out there and as the tournament starts there may be more women who will make themselves known. 

Press Conference Controversy

So Naomi Osaka has decided that she is not going to do any press during this year's French Open.  I am of 2 minds on this so bear with me.  On the one hand I am assuming that professional athletes have some sort of obligation to do press either before or during tournaments. I suspect that this assumption while not written in stone is something that everyone is aware of.  On the one hand it provides visibility to the sport and the tournament as it allows sports journalist to have access to the players and write stories so that us fans who cannot be there have some idea of what is going on in the minds of said players on particular topics.  

This assumption has not always benefitted fans as some of the stories that are written by journalists leave a lot to be desired.  In addition to this there are times when the questions to players leave fans wanting to wipe the floor with journalists.  The questions and assumptions are sometimes intrusive and lack empathy especially when a player is going through challenging situations with their games or their off court issues.  See Venus at Wimbledon when she was dealing with the fatal motor vehicle accident.  

As far as Ms. Osaka's stance that for her mental health she is not doing any press, I can empathise with her and the stance that she has taken.  Many of us struggle daily with the mental aspect of our jobs. We find it challenging to get up and go to work every day and we struggle to cope with the demands that are being made on us by our bosses.  It does not help that currently Ms. Osaka and many others not only have to deal with the mental struggle of being a professional athlete traveling the world, but doing so in the middle of a pandemic.  I cannot imagine how arduous that can be.  I don't think a lot of persons have realised just how challenging this must be for athletes, and especially those who are travelling with children.  You not only have to protect yourself and your family, but you are also ensuring that the team that travels with you are also protected.  That is a lot of responsibility to be placed on the shoulders of an athlete and then you have to go out there and put out your best effort.  I can therefore see why Ms. Osaka felt that the best thing to do was to cut some of the extraneous stuff from her schedule and she believes that appearing before the press to discuss her performance was not something she wanted to subject herself to, at least not at this tournament. 

The press corps, and some fans have taken it upon themselves to condemn Ms. Osaka's stance.  They have actually made her point with their ready  takes and have not looked at the reason why she felt the need to take this stance.  I reminded myself this morning that the press corps that usually does the French Open are the same ones who had press conference transcripts embargoed so that they could write their think pieces and skew the answers given by players and then have the players derided by fans because of comments which have been taken out of context.  We talk all the time about misinformation and fake news in politics but it also happens in sport, and most of the egregious things that have been written about athletes have mostly been done by the press corps covering the French Open.  

Fans can usually view in real time press conferences in real time from the AO, USO and Wimbledon and transcripts are provided in a relatively short space of time.  

Ms. Osaka is the highest paid female athlete.  She has a fantastic marketing team behind her and I am sure that her many sponsors are not killing themselves because of her stance of no press conferences.  Perhaps what the media should do is try and find some way to engage with Ms. Osaka on mental health issues and how they affect athletes.  It would be great to have the sport's athletes who are competing give their views on playing in a pandemic.  The challenges that they face.  We don't all need to listen to Benoit Paire spout off about the slavery of tennis in a pandemic.