Embarrassed To Be American

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, he is Isner's coach. ;)
Well, it seems so:
---
Back on Team Isner
https://tennis.life/2018/07/14/frantic-friday-wimbledon-supporting-players/

Gimelstob coached John Isner for a couple of years in 2015 and 2016. And he returned in 2018, although not in full-time role as he shares duties with David Macpherson.

Even back in their first iteration, Gimelstob was big on Isner hitting the ball harder within boundaries, returning harder, and coming to the net to finish points off.

That’s what the 33-year-old did this Wimbledon, and it nearly got him to the men’s singles final.

But it was Gimelstob’s performance in the player’s box, shown repeatedly on the television broadcasts, that had social media quite in a tizzy for awhile.

Ladies & gents, John Isner's coach, Justin Gimelstob #Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/jdDsAvpCoz

— BBC Tennis (@bbctennis) July 13, 2018

Dressed in a suit and tie with aviator glasses (next to the more tennis-attired Macpherson), Gimelstob was standing and pumping his first on virtually every point.

In fact, once, he stood up, pumped his right fist – while still holding on to the hand of his seated girlfriend with his left hand. That’s multitasking.

It also looked as though he and Isner were exchanging hand signals among other coaching methods which, as we all know, isn’t kosher.


Please, someone put some sedative in Gimelstob’s tea. He’s scaring the natives. Isner – have a word with your man. #wimbledon2018 #isner #anderson


— Sibella Holland (@Ascoyne) July 13, 2018


Not as annoying as the shots of Gimelstob in the Anderson/ Isner match #too many


— Beth S (@bethinpv) July 13, 2018


Did anyone check on blue suit guy coaching #Isner? He may need some kind of aftercare now #IsnerVsAnderson has finally ended. Surely can't be safe to maintain that level of emotional intensity for so long Someone get #Gimelstob some chocolate. #wimbledon2018 #Wimbledon


— Megan Kerr (@MegDeeBee) July 13, 2018


On one hand, I’d like Isner to win. On the other hand, that’ll lead to even more celebratory shots of Gimelstob looking like the biggest wanker in the universe


— Doug Carll (@DScottCarll) July 13, 2018


John Isner is definitely receiving on-court coaching. But Gimelstob is doing it when he's cheering so it gets mixed up and is hard to notice.


Umpire can't prove, it seems!


Gimelstob is giving him gestural suggestions. Asking him to roll the ball.


— Sir Talks A Lot (@vocabartist) July 13, 2018


As a member of the Player Council, for which Anderson is vice-president and to which Isner was just elected for a return term, Gimelstob cheering on one player at the expense of another is just another of those myriad conflicts of interest tennis seems to have little stomach to even address.

Never mind the coaching thing.

But, as Gimelstob pointed out to your Tennis.Life correspondent during a chat a few years ago, nothing in tennis prevents him from putting his fingers in as many pies as he can and until it does, he’ll keep doing it. Can’t argue with that chutzpah.

He has a lot of yellow cards in his file already, for things he’s said that way crossed the line. But he was probably loving every moment of it on Friday.

Except for the ending, of course.
---
 
Or Mary Jo Fernandez commentating on a Federer match while her husband is sitting in Federer's box.
The article on Isner and Gimmestob was about Justin illegally coaching Isner with covert hand gestures and shouting out during play. When has either Tony Godsick or Mary Jo ever done this or been accused of doing it? Sorry, but this is a ridiculously failed analogy.
 
Clear conflict of interest, because how can you be an objective commentator during a match in which your spouse is the agent of one of the players? Clearly, it's in your best interest that he (Fed) does well..
Really?? Hope you were sarcastic. Let's use some logic. It would be a conflict if she was an umpire or lines person because then she could impact the match. Being a commentator doesn't have any conflict at all.

If she did a bad job being objective she could lose her own job and career. Show me some examples where she's commented on Roger's matches and clearly favored him please. And even if she did it would be to her own detriment. As to your question on how you can be an objective commentator when it's in your best interest fed does well... By actually taking your job seriously and being an objective commentator no matter who is playing. You can do this and still hope he does well unless your moral compass is garbage.

You said it yourself, it is in her best interest Federer does well. And I'm saying that doesn't matter because she can't make him do well with her commentating. Unless you have proof she has magic words and her commentating makes Federer play better?
 
Last edited:
The article on Isner and Gimmestob was about Justin illegally coaching Isner with covert hand gestures and shouting out during play. When has either Tony Godsick or Mary Jo ever done this or been accused of doing it? Sorry, but this is a ridiculously failed analogy.
Yep some are grasping for straws here. Check out my post right above.
 
Really?? Hope you were sarcastic. Let's use some logic. It would be a conflict if she was an umpire or lines person because then she could impact the match. Being a commentator doesn't have any conflict at all.

If she did a bad job being objective she could lose her own job and career. Show me some examples where she's commented on Roger's matches and clearly favored him please. And even if she did it would be to her own detriment. As to your question on how you can be an objective commentator when it's in your best interest fed does well... By actually taking your job seriously and being an objective commentator no matter who is playing. You can do this and still hope he does well unless your moral compass is garbage.

You said it yourself, it is in her best interest Federer does well. And I'm saying that doesn't matter because she can't make him do well with her commentating. Unless you have proof she has magic words and her commentating makes Federer play better?
Okay, I never said she was biased... All I'm saying is that there is a case to be made for COI there... Personally, I don't give two ****s about this issue...
 
Oh come now. Take one player at 12 years of age with natural athletic ability and force him to learn to be an all court player. Teach him to serve and volley. Teach him to take the ball early and look to WIN points. Could work. We have access to two of the greatest offensive players ever.

Tennis’s war if attrition is a crap shoot. When we talk about great players, for the most part, not always, but for the most part we talk about players that take the offensive. Someone take a chance!!!!!!!!
 
I see real talent here. You should throw your resume into the Trump administration.
Lol unbelievable!! By definition, it's a situation where somebody can exploit their position for a benefit. You and some other posters clearly fail to see that she can't actually impact his result whether she commentates in his matches or not. Nor does she get any benefit to herself commenting on his vs other matches.

That's kind of the point in a conflict of interest, where actual impact can be made that's conflicting. I would agree if she was allowed to line judge or umpire matches.

The people who actually believe her commentating is a somehow a conflict even though it doesn't even meet the definition of one could definitely succeed in the Trump administration. #fakenews
 
Last edited:
@volleynets

It’s not much different than when Dell used to commentate on players he represented as agent. Here it’s the wife of agent.

There is both a manifest COI (she’s commenting on Brand FEDR the health of which directly impacts her husband’s bottom line) and the appearance of a COI.

She has one interest to speak freely without restriction on topics and give an honest opinion as a commentator with the other competing interest being the health of “brand Federer” and if not enhance it certainly not to harm it in any manner.

Like I suggested maybe some kind of compliance related position with The Administration where your talent would not go unrecognized. ;)
 
@volleynets

It’s not much different than when Dell used to commentate on players he represented as agent. Here it’s the wife of agent.

There is both a manifest COI (she’s commenting on Brand FEDR the health of which directly impacts her husband’s bottom line) and the appearance of a COI.

She has one interest to speak freely without restriction on topics and give an honest opinion as a commentator with the other competing interest being the health of “brand Federer” and if not enhance it certainly not to harm it in any manner.

Like I suggested maybe some kind of compliance related position with The Administration where your talent would not go unrecognized. ;)
Again. Whether she comments with bias or not, what is the benefit to her standing that she can exploit? What is the benefit to Federer!? Financial? Performance?

How can she enhance the brand and if she isn't harming it, why would another commentator choose to do so? That could get them in trouble for not being objective.

You're twisting and spinning this against the definition of conflict of interest, that's a very important requirement you will surely use to succeed in our current administration where such skills are the key.
 
When we talk about great players, for the most part, not always, but for the most part we talk about players that take the offensive. Someone take a chance!!!!!!!!
How then do we explain this ATG, who refused to come to the net during 2018 Wimbledon even on sitters? Serious question. He ventured near the net once in a blue moon yet won it.

 
All this crap that Mary Jo has a “conflict of interest” because she’s married to Godsick...:rolleyes: First of all, Mary Jo doesn’t commentate during Fed matches. She covers women’s matches and does interviews prior to men’s matches. Also, what about Donald Dell, who did commentate during hundreds of Lendl’s matches when he was his agent? Also Aaron Krickstein. That was pretty bad, but Mary Jo isn’t anywhere near that league.

Chris Evert has no connection to Fed, yet openly drools over him when commentating. Koenig does the same with Rafa. All commentators have their biases, but I challenge anyone to point to a single thing Mary Jo has ever said in the booth about Roger that is controversial or even interesting!
 
Top