Skip to main content

Nalbandian Banned - I was there.

Petulant, puerile, spoilt brat. I was there. I watched David Nalbandian, the otherwise brilliant Argentinean tennis star (Wimbledon finalist a few years ago), despite being a set up against Marin Cilic in the final of the Aegon Championship (the grass warm-up for Wimbles), lose his temper and injure a line judge.


The previous point (an unforced error) he bounced his racquet twice on the ground (right in front of me). In days gone by, the umpire would have fined him a point for racquet abuse. This might have either immediately controlled his anger, or driven it deeper. But he would NOT have reacted in the way he did after he lost the following point - which was actually a really well played cross-court from Cilic.

There was no alternative except to disqualify him. The crowd hated it because they wanted to see good tennis. But to have gone on to win the championship having injured a line official would have been totally wrong, so they were unfortunately right to call a halt to the match, even though they might have prevented it happening by reacting to his previous tantrum more decisively.

Then came the BBC on-court interviews. First we heard a disappointed Cilic who clearly was embarrassed to have won the championship in this way. Then the interviewer, Sue Barker, talked to Nalbandian. First he begrudgingly apologised to 'the guy' and stated it was a mistake. No shit. He'd given 'the guy' a deep gash from which blood ran onto the court. Immensely painful I would imagine. Hopefully the shin bone wasn't damaged. I hope he sues! Then, to Nalbandian's eternal shame, he began a rant against the ATP for putting so much pressure on players (making them play too much, too many rules etc) to the point where losses of temper were inevitable.

Well tell that to Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokavic. Everyone loses their temper occasionally on court, but they never exhibit violent petulance. They're all under the same (possibly greater) pressures, as we all are in one way or another, but to lose control and then blame it on the system, in my view, defines immaturity.

David N - if you don't like being paid to perform within the rules of the system - find another job! I gather there's an opening for a line judge...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking an interest.

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo
7 comments
Read more

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite
Post a Comment
Read more

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat
Post a Comment
Read more