Very interesting information came out during an interview that Andre Sa, former Brazilian professional player and now in charge of player relations at the Australian Open, gave to Eurosport. He explains that Roger Federer’s knee is not the reason for his future no-show in Melbourne.
Here is an exerpt :
“If Federer doesn’t come, it’s because of his quarantine. When I spoke to him about it a month ago, he had two options. Come with the family and observe the quarantine or come alone. In the first case, Mirka and the four children would not have been able to leave their room during quarantine. The only exception is for players. Mirka did not approve of this option. Federer could then come alone. But he said this to me: “Dude, I’m 39, 4 kids and 20 Grand Slams. I’m past the age of being separated from my family for five weeks.” “
Balancing the “off” is not done
I imagine the Australian Open is not very happy with the man’s decision to the 20 Grand Slams. It is even certain because, otherwise, this information would never have come out. However, it is indeed a deliberate choice to put Federer in the panade.
There are several ways to analyze the situation.
The first is to put yourself in Roger Federer’s shoes. As he puts it so well, he’s past the age of it all. He clearly no longer has his motivation of 18. His goal is not just to find the courts. He wants to do it where he wants and under the conditions he wants. After all, he has proven and given enough of his time / life to be able to be free. In this case, we are entitled to say that what the Australian Open did, via Andre Sa, which they clearly sent to the box, is not really nice, nor respectful. They broke the trust the Swiss had placed in them to publicly announce that he lied. Frankly, swinging the “off” is not done.
The other analysis is one that can be done by putting yourself in the shoes of the organizer. Roger Federer’s presence at the Australian Open changes everything! The Swiss is one of those players who sell tickets. Lots of tickets. But that’s not all. On top of that, “Rodge” is one of the few players who also has the power to make you wake up in the middle of the night, so that you can follow his matches live when they take place at the other end. of the world. In short, if Federer plays the Australian Open, the TV audiences are not the same. It is one of the 2 flagship products of men’s tennis.
A few hours of Federer on TV would act as an anti-depressant
Based on this analysis, it is fair to find the champion’s attitude a selfish suspicion. What? He dared to say something negative about Roger Federer? !!! Yeah, so what? If he is not really injured and the only reason he does not play the tournament is that his family must accompany him but also benefit from the same advantages as the players (going out 5 hours a day), so yes, I say it and I repeat it, it is selfishness. There are so many people, currently in deep slump due to this unprecedented global crisis, and for whom a few hours of Federer on TV would act as an anti-depressant! I’d be curious if he and Mirka thought about it when they made their decision.
Also, if the 2021 season is Roger Federer’s last, not playing the Australian Open in my opinion is a huge mistake in his release lineup. To take care of it, and god knows it’s a big, big, non-negligible detail, he has to say goodbye to all the major professional tennis events, such as the Grand Slams, the Olympics, the Davis Cup. and the Masters. To this, he must add appointments that are close to his heart, such as the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, his tournament in Bale, Halle, the Open 13 Provence in Marseille and a few others.
But these are not the only reasons why not playing the Australian Open is a mistake. Also in a scenario of the last season, Melbourne could be the only opportunity for Roger Federer to play in front of the public. So yes, there is the quarantine constraint, the bubble and all that, but it is still not a superhuman effort. The pros and cons are quickly seen.
If this matter is real, then I am first of all extremely disappointed with the behavior of the Federer clan, but also surprised with the methods of the Australian Open. The “happy slam” here takes on more of the appearance of “nasty slam”.
.
