* !Picby Pete Bodo*
I've spoken with a number of plugged-in people in the wake of what we'll call the "blue-clay controversy" (the BCC, no pun intended for those of you familiar with the raging conflicts plaguing American college football)," and I can assure you it probably will be a hotly argued topic when the ATP players have their annual Wimbledon meeting.
Whatever the decision about the future of blue clay, one thing is certain: The players are becoming more active in pursuit of their own desires. You can probably trace this new activism back to those awful rain-delays and controversies at the last U.S. Open. The next thing you know, a fire is buring under the ATP leadership (it was evident at the player meeting in Melbourne, Australia), and Wimbledon and the French Open are announcing a dramatic increase in prize-money—most of that gravy ladled out as relief to lower-ranked players.
Those prize-money increases were declared unilaterally and promoted by the tournament folks as proof of their largesse, but they were just trying—with great cunning and success—to get out ahead of the story, which is that the ATP is in the midst of a big, multi-stage push to increase prize-money across the board.
The players will get a chance not only to vent when they discuss the BCC at Wimbledon, but to call for rewriting the ATP rulebook. Because the decision to sanction blue clay was made by fiat, by former ATP CEO Adam Helfant. Novak Djokovic, who along with Rafael Nadal was one of the main critics of that move, said of that (after losing his quarterfinal to countryman Janko Tipsarevic):
"They made a decision without the players agreeing on it so this is a rule that has to be changed immediately. . .This is just a clear example of how our system does not work in favor of players ... It's very simple. He (Helfant) was going away, he knew his contract was not being renewed so he made this decision on his own ... he didn't really care about tennis, about what the players think."
Djokovic's comments make for good copy—after all, he's perched on the soapbox of the No. 1 ranking—but are they accurate, or fair?
According to the ATP rules, a change of surface requires approval by the ATP board, which has three player representatives. A change of color, a frequent occurence in recent year, is a "management" decision. Blue has been accepted as the best background for an optic yellow ball; the problem here is that nobody could foresee how color and composition could be so entwined.
Agree or not, Helfant was acting within his jurisdiction in approving the change to blue, and he did it after consulting with a number of players (as he's out of the job now, I couldn't confirm just which ones he allegedly spoke with) despite some early anti-blue feedback. My sources told me that Madrid owner Ion Tiriac had been lobbying for blue for years, and only received permission after he proved to ATP representatives that the blue clay was viable, non-toxic, glare-free, etc. etc. The conditions were allegedly fulfilled by the promoter to the satisfaction of ATP representatives. Too bad they couldn't use that test court in the Caja Magica.
What matters most here is that however you feel about that court and the BCC, Helfant did his due diligence and only fulfilled his role as the ATP CEO. After all, he wasn't hired to parrot the views of, say, Roger Federer, or Nadal—partly because, as we recently saw, those views are often conflicting.
But all this leads to another question, which is: When is the composition of a court different, and thus subject to ATP board approval? And just which red clay court is the theoretical gold standard? What was the baseline for the blue court—Court Centrale, at Roland Garros? Court No. 5 at Monte Carlo? the center court at Charleston (a Har-Tru clay court)? There was no baseline, because there cannot be.
Judging by the overall reaction of fans and media, the color of the court was a great success, even if the actual composition of the surface was not. So the question is, will the players throw the baby out with the bathwater? Will they re-write the ATP rules, taking control of what are now management decisions, and perhaps even codify the conservative, anti-innnovative posture some took in Madrid?
The players are flexing their muscles, and any decision they take about the BCC will show us how they define the concept, "good of the game."
*
The Racquet Scientist posts will be oriented toward hard news and hot-button issues and stress brevity, clarity, and making the best use of my contacts in the game. We will be following up these posts with video and/or podcasts to share your reactions with our listeners and viewers, so please keep your comments on-topic.