These year-end developments have led many to take a long, hard look at the tours’ retaliation against Wimbledon. If anything, the times are growing more rather than less uncertain, so rankings points, while not exactly an existential issue, are unlikely to go away. What happens, for example, if Russian and Belarussian nationals are suddenly denied visas for international travel?
Russell echoed many interested parties when he said, “The Slams have to have [ranking] points. Wimbledon should have had points. There are other ways for the ATP to make a statement.”
If the ATP decision to deny ranking points is moot, tour officials added insult to perceived injury by failing to mitigate or address (as far as the public record goes) the repercussions of the retaliation against Wimbledon. There certainly were options.
“Okay fine, they took away the rankings points,” Gilbert said. “They could at least have left Race [to Turin] points, or somehow pro-rated it, 75 cents on dollar, or something like that.”
The ATP is understandably keen to retain the services of its top attractions, even if that calls for some light thumb pressure on the scales. There’s nothing new in that. Tennis is a star-based sport, and the proverbial “level playing field” is always canted a few degrees in favor of the haves over the have-nots. Usually, that process is seamless and, as in the case of choice court assignments and playing times, justifiable. This process has been a little different.
“You can look at what happened at Wimbledon and get the sense that people in the organizations involved could have done a whole lot better,” Boynton said, noting that it’s not the fault of the players that there were no ranking points awarded. Largely, though, Boynton, like most other ATP folks, remains pro-exemption.
The coach has a simple rebuke for any player who might feel the exemption is unfair: “You should have won a Slam. You were in the draw. You had the same chance as anyone else.”