Serena

So there we have it……..apparently Umpire Ramos is sexist, Serena requires an apology and tennis is sexist. Some of that may or may not be true, but most of it is not relevant to the events as they occurred

Lets just pause for a second, Naomi Osaka blew Serena Williams away and won her first Grand slam title. I think we’ve found the cause of the outbursts. Not sexism, not racism, just unrelenting pressure from a youngster who didn’t follow the script and let Serena win her 24th

I hope the final will not be remembered for the behavior of Serena Williams

At times, I wasn’t sure I was watching the same incident as many commentators on the event. I’m not even sure most people commentating actually watched the event. I took time to re-watch the match to make sure I took it all in and I’m still amazed at some of the misreporting of facts from reputable news outlets. Opinion is one thing, but facts are another. I will explain my thought process further, but for me, a bratish player broke some rules of conduct, didn’t like it and lost their way during one of the most stressful moments in their career when they knew “the game was up” and they were being beaten by a young player keeping tight hold of all her emotions. Please can people stop saying “he was scared of her ability”, “she was fighting for all Mum’s”, “he was being sexist”, “she has more to put up with”, etc. It’s not about that. It was a match officiated by a well respected umpire and played by one of the greatest women players of all time and a young lady who has the potential to be one of the greatest women players of all time; and won in unfortunate circumstances by the player who held it all together

There are all sorts of angles to look at this, so I’ll break them down

1) Serena
2) the umpire
3) code violations
4) references to history
5) sexist
6) the match

1) Serena
I did watch quite a few matches prior to the final. I actually thought most of Serena’s matches I saw (Sevastova apart) were a bit closer than the eventual score suggested. The simple fact is she possesses the best set of tennis weapons on the women’s tour and eventually they come to bear on a match. In most of the matches it took a while for Serena to get into a groove, but once she did; that was it. I felt the main reason other women have got closer to her in this comeback, is not because they are better (by and large), but Serena is simply not as fit and on point as she was. I have nothing but mountains of admiration for her comeback. I’ve no idea what her four or five hospital surgeries were after she gave birth, but just being able to recover in less than a year to be a normal mother is admirable. To even countenance playing a sport is one huge step further. To get back to the level she has in a brutal sport like tennis is incredible. There are odd examples of runners and winter sports mothers who defy logic and race again in months, but I doubt any have had the medical journey Serena has had. It should be inspiring to all women. I do get a little peeved with all the “mom and baby” nonsense, but I do acknowledge she is special; but then she was special before the birth

2) the Umpire
Carlos Ramos has being doing his job for years. You don’t get to officiate at Grand Slam’s if you are “a problem”. You certainly don’t officiate Finals. He done quite a few, in fact he was the first umpire to officiate all four men’s grand slam finals. He has even officiated a Serena v Venus match at Wimbledon, so he would be a known quantity to both the US Open and Serena. He is a Gold Badge ITF Official (the highest level). At the time of the 2018 US Open, there are 21 men and 10 women worldwide who are officially Gold Badge ITF officials. A very small number.

It appears Carlos Ramos is also not afraid of high profile players. This is even more surprising when you learn that these officials are invited to tournaments and are effectively self employed (although it is called “employed” by the ITF). Rock the boat too much and you don’t get invites. To show his fearlessness with high ranked players, search for footage of Djokovic, Nadal and others who have received correctly given Code Violations. The one thing that is different is that by and large the higher ranked men argue their case, they don’t abuse, but they get on with their match and do not receive another code violation. The one recent player who didn’t walk away was the Italian Fognini. His abuse was awful and he was effectively fined $130K and stripped of entry to three Grand Slams, so no, men are not treated differently in all cases

I’ve never met Carlos Ramos. I did see him officiate a match at Wimbledon once and he appeared a pleasant person. He certainly winked and nodded to line judges on calls and talked to the ball kids. He seemed a normal umpire to me. In her post final press conference, Serena was asked “Do you have any previous history with Carlos Ramos in the chair?”. She replied “Not at all. He’s always been a great umpire”. She could have been joking or trying to be ironic, but the tone of her answer sounded genuine to me

Professional sport at the highest level eventually comes down to small margins. Players at Grand Slams generally know who their umpire will be. Both Naomi and Serena would have known their umpire was to be Carlos Ramos. They would also know from other Grand Slams, knowledge on the WTA\ATP circuit, rumours, chat, etc that Carlos Ramos can be a stickler and can be cold. With that in mind, a player thinking of playing the umpire would need a bit of finesse to do so

3) Code Violations
Tennis players know all about code violations. You learn these as you progress through junior tennis. Kids under enormous pressure break and throw rackets, scream, swear, and generally exhibit what most parents would deem bad behaviour. Some kids learn to control it, others don’t and often leave the competitive part of the game. All juniors think they know “that umpire” who hands down code violations like confetti to visiting players or who doesn’t seem to catch line call cheats, but only them when they bang their racket. The truth is, 99% of Umpires know kids are learning and really only apply the rules to the worst offenders. The point I’m making here is that any player who is making money at tennis has had a long junior career. As you move up to higher ranked and international junior tournaments you encounter roving umpires who patrol multiple courts, to match umpires (often just for finals), to full line judge and match umpire matches, so the scrutiny increases. Most umpires and officials are fairly lenient as children learn and grow, but as the stakes increase, as you move into professional tournaments, so the professionalism and expectation increases. It’s a learning process, but you learn. By the time you are a pro you know all about code violations. You might not know the reference number, but you know what type of behaviour will get you a code violation. You also know that the code violation clock ratchets up very quickly. You don’t get disqualified for breaking your racket. It is a code violation. It might be your second of the match, so it is a point penalty. Next time you talk to a pro, ask them how much they are fined for these misdemeanours. $10K is nothing to a top50 player, but a $500 fine for a racket abuse code violation is expensive to the much lower ranked pro earning $20K a year from tournaments prize money

In essence there are four stages to code violations:

First Stage = Warning. You break your racket. You get a Warning
Second Stage = Point Penalty. You’ve sworn at a line judge. You get a point penalty, as this is your second violation. It depends where this event happens in the serving game, as to whether it actually means you loose a game or not
Third Stage = Game Penalty. Ouch. Clearly two official warnings didn’t work. This is brutal and is what Serena suffered to go 3-5 down
Fourth Stage = Disqualification. This is really another Third Stage, but normally the event is considered so bad that disqualification is required. However, if there is physical abuse, a player will immediately get a disqualification

In the 2018 US Open, umpires gave out 108 code violations over the course of the tournament (per the ITF, USTA and NYT journalist Christopher Clarey). The draws were both 126 draws, so you can assume an equal number of players. Of these 108; men were issued with 86 and women with 22. Simple arithmetic would suggest that on ratio of 3:5 sets (men play best of 5, women play best of 3) would mean that on average you would expect the 22 code violations given to the women to equate to about 40 for the men. So why were men issued with more than twice as many than expected?. Sexism? Men are more aggressive ? Men’s tennis is prone to more outbursts?. Who knows, it is what it is, but they certainly get more. As Serena said in her press conference “I’m here fighting for women’s rights and for women’s equality”. On that basis, women should be penalised far more

4) References to history
The first challenge that you hear is “well McEnroe never got treated this way” or “Men don’t get treated this way”. First of all, rules change and it is probably because of players like McEnroe that codes were beefed up. If you look at the angst, cartoons, abuse and general dismay at his behaviour, I don’t think he was let off lightly. However, those antics were decades ago and not of much relevance to the tour today. It must be said that over two times as many code violations for men as women in the 2018 US Open put a different picture to the argument for that tournament only. I wonder what the figures are for the general tour and the other grand slams. Disqualifications in tennis are relatively rare, but men out rank women 4-2 so far.

In 1990 John McEnroe was disqualified against Mikael Pernfors at the Australian Open for three code violations
In 1995 Tim Henman was disqualified for hitting a ball girl with a shot
In 1996 Irina Spîrlea was disqualified for abusive language directed at an official
In 2007 Anastasia Rodionova was disqualified for hitting a ball at spectators cheering her opponent Angelique Kerber
In 2012 David Nalbandian was disqualified for injuring an official after kicking an advertising board
In 2017 Denis Shapovalov was disqualified after hitting the chair umpire with a ball hit in anger

I think of those infamous six, Tim Henman, David Nalbandian and Denis Shapovalov were of the more accidental type, but in accordance with the code violation rules and a bit like strict liability rule in doping, you are guilty.

When Serena lost to Kim Clijsters in the 2009 US Open, she wasn’t disqualified, she lost by getting a code violation that was her second code violation. The issue for Serena in that match was because she had already received a code violation warning for racket abuse. Again, this was totally within her control to not break her own racket. Serena then served a second serve at 15-30, but was deemed to have recorded a foot fault. That meant she lost that point, so it was then 15-40. Serena then decided to abuse a court official with the infamous “I swear to God, I’m f—— going to take this f—— ball and shove it down your f—— throat, you hear that? I swear to God”. Looking at the code violation definition, I think that was quite an easy one to give. Of course it wasn’t Carlos Ramos in the chair for that match, but a women umpire, Louise Engzell (who is still a Gold Badge ITF Official). No sexism there, so not the argument used by Serena that day. That was her second code violation and on the violation scale that was deemed a point penalty. That lost her the point, so 15-40 moved on to become “game” to Kim Clijsters. It was unfortunate that that game meant Kim won the set and the match, so whilst it appears Serena was “disqualified” she wasn’t, it was just the natural progression of code violations and their outcome on a score

To make matters worse for Serena in 2009, she had to issue a revised statement 48hours after the event to correct her first statement that contained no apology. The second statement said, “I want to amend my press statement of yesterday and want to make it clear as possible – I want to apologise first to the lineswoman, Kim Clijsters, the USTA and mostly tennis fans everywhere for my inappropriate outburst. I’m a woman of great pride, faith and integrity, and I admit when I’m wrong. I need to make it clear to all young people that I handled myself inappropriately and it’s not the way to act – win or lose, good call or bad call in any sport, in any manner. I like to lead by example. We all learn from experiences both good and bad, I will learn and grow from this, and be a better person as a result.”. She didn’t seem to make use of that experience in this match and on a critical reading of that statement makes you wonder if she really meant it or was forced to issue it

5) Sexist
I’ll be short on this one. I’m a white male, so it can be dangerous territory to comment on whether a well known black women feels her treatment was sexist. I have read many articles from women on this subject based on this match and on balance a heavy majority feel her treatment was not sexist in itself, but if it is shown that male players are not dealt with in the same way, then you can understand why she would feel it was sexist. That’s fair. The issue is, how do we know if male players are not dealt with in the same way. The 88 code violations in the 2018 US Open given to male players could mainly be for racket abuse and male verbal abuse was not picked up as it was for Serena, so the 88 may still hide an issue. It’s difficult to say, but on balance, I think it was not sexist.

6) the match
the match was a very high quality match. I thought Naomi moved a bit quicker and returned one too many of Serena bombs, that normally would be winners. A low first serve percentage from Serena didn’t help and in essence Naomi was in control. The only thing likely to stop Naomi winning the overall match would be her mental state. I think Serena knew that, and in part I think that pressure played a part in her downfall

The first code violation was for coaching. The code defines coaching as “Players shall not receive coaching during a tournament match. Communications of any kind, audible or visible, between a player and a coach may be construed as coaching”. Everybody has seen the hand gestures from Patrick Mouratoglou (Serena’s coach) and also probably heard that he agreed after the match that he was trying to offer coaching advice to Serena. The misdirection from Patrick after the event to say “everybody does it, Naomi’s team were doing it”, is probably right in his assertion, but he was the one caught. Serena’s point in her press conference was “He (Carlos Ramos) alleged that I was cheating, and I wasn’t cheating. Then I had a good conversation with him. I said, Listen, you know my character. You know me really well. Like you know that I don’t even call for on-court coach. I don’t even do that. He’s like, You know what? I understand. I don’t know if he said, You’re right. But he understood. He’s, like, Yeah, I get what you’re saying”. However, actually on court she said “‘I didn’t get coaching, I didn’t get coaching. I didn’t get coaching. You need to make an announcement that I didn’t get coaching. I don’t cheat, I didn’t get coaching. How can you say that?. You owe me an apology. You owe me an apology. I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what is right for her and I’ve never cheated. You owe me an apology”. I think Serena was hoping that exchange meant Carlos Ramos agreed he would rescind the first code violation. I’m not sure any umpire could do that (unless it was a clear technical mistake), as their authority would immediately disappear. My problem with this first code violation was we don’t know if Carlos Ramos had given Serena a soft warning earlier in the match, or if he saw coaching all through the match to that point. Seeing it live on the television, you can only see that he saw the hand gestures and reacted. I find that part the main issue for me in all of the events

The second code violation was for racket abuse. Umpires have no say on this one. It is the breaking of the racket that results in the code violation. Modern rackets can splinter and officials and spectators could be hit by shards of material, so you sort of see why they don’t often issue a code violation for bouncing a racket, but do for breaking it. Nobody tells a player to smash their racket. Nobody told Serena to break her racket. She did it herself immediately after loosing her serve. As this was a second code violation this resulted in a point penalty. When the players returned to the court after the change of ends break, Carlos Ramos started by saying 15-0. At this point Serena must have known her plea that “you know my character. You know me really well. Like you know that I don’t even call for on-court coach”, didn’t alter the initial code violation. She was now in trouble. As an extremely experienced player, it was reasonably expected by all that Serena would batten down the hatches, re-direct her anger and not give Carlos Ramos an opportunity to issue another code violation. Looking at statistics online, it seems rare for players to go beyond a point penalty

The third code violation was for verbal abuse. The rule on this one is “Players shall not at any time directly or indirectly verbally abuse an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person within the precincts of the tournament site. Verbal abuse is defined as any statement about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or any other person that implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive”. Serena had a number of verbal interactions with Carlos Ramos. I’d argue that not all of them would fit that rule, but a number did cross the boundary. It is not clear if Carlos Ramos was patient and was letting Serena let off some steam and effectively ignoring the abuse, but eventually after the third or fourth abuse offense issued the code violation or if he jumped at the first mention of the word “liar”. In any case the television pictures displayed an official being lectured to and abused, with the addition of threatening type gesticulations (even if I doubt Serena would every resort to anything physical and I doubt Carlos Ramos was intimidated by the actions). Carlos Ramos gave a code violation for verbal abuse after being repeatably told he was a thief and then a liar. As Serena said after loosing her serve at 4-3 in the second set ‘You will never, ever, ever be on another court of mine as long as you live. You are the liar. When are you going to give me my apology? You owe me an apology. Say it, say you’re sorry. Then don’t talk to me, don’t talk to me. How dare you insinuate I was cheating? You stole a point from me. You’re a thief too”. Not too difficult to see why he issued a third code violation

So in the end the second and third code violations were easy to issue and I can understand why they were given. Serena lost control and she was punished by the system of code violations. For me, the real issue at play was the first code violation. We know nothing about it what lead up to it. Did Serena receive constant coaching, was it the first time Carlos Ramos saw it, was he advised of it by a line judge. We may never know, but without that code violation, Serena would unlikely have got to the Third Stage and the game penalty, which was effectively the break of serve needed by Naomi to win the set and the Championship.

Serena’s first defense was (as it has been on previous occasions) is to attack and alter the conversation to one of her being attacked. I’d imagine this reaction is after years of struggle through her teenage years and as a professional, not only because she is a woman, but as result of how hard it has been trying to succeed as a black women athlete in America from the roughest of neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, my view, is that in this case; it misses the point. The sport she plays (and earns a good living from) has a set of rules. The rules might be antiquated. The rules might be daft. The rules might be applied by humans who are all different. The sport might have too many governing bodies that apply pressure and support players and officials differently, etc, etc………BUT, the rule book is there, and as far as I and most people I have talked to about it think, it appears to have been fairly applied in this case

Thankfully the better player on the day won. Well done Naomi