Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

693 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This question is raised fairly regularly, in a sort of soto-voce manner, and mostly by the fans of the players that didn't receive any favorable or fair treatment (as perceived by their fans) from the Tournaments.
It's mainly a question of timing and the court choices, and at times - pre-tournament surface conditioning to suit specific player's style of play.
One most often criticized player for receiving the preferential treatment and favoritism is Roger Federer.
In some cases, when favoritism was so obvious that tournament org couldn't ignore the blatant issues, decision makers even stated that Federer "deserves" such, preferential treatment, because... well... he's Federer.

Federer, on the other hand, was mainly denying such preferential treatment, but when it became so egregious to the point of pathetic, he adopted the "it's TV decision, it's Sponsor decision, it's tournament decision... I didn't do it".

However, It is a good question to ask: How much do you guys think this preferential treatment with scheduling, courts, surfaces helped certain players and gave them an advantage over others? Any good examples?
1 - 1 of 1 Posts