During the second set of the Pierre Herbert vs Nick Kyrgios match at the US Open, with Kyrgios looking uninterested one set down and trailing 3-0 in the second, umpire Mohamed Lahyani got out of his chair and talked to him. Controversy exploded.
The accusation that Lahyani ‘coached’ Kyrgios to a victory is now widespread. It’s been said this was unfair to Herbert and was not in the spirit of the game. The problem with this accusation, though, is that Lahyani’s actions allowed for a fairer game to be played and upheld the spirit of the game of tennis. He did the exact opposite of what he is accused of having done.
What is the role of an umpire? It is to make sure the game is played in a fair manner according to the rules of tennis. A fair manner includes respecting the game and your opponent, something Kyrgios was not doing. That is why the umpire needed to intervene.
That Kyrgios has a fragile mental state on court is not news. That he occasionally tanks points or games is not news. That his demeanour on court is sometimes horrendous is not news. But what do you do about it?
Sanctions, official warnings, financial penalties or lost points are possible solutions, but they are not positive solutions – they will not actually get to the heart of the situation.
Umpire Lahyani therefore tried a different method. It wasn’t an official warning, but it was a warning disguised as encouragement. Did it have any effect? In the short term it did not.
Kyrgios should have lost the second set after going down 5-2, but as Kyrgios sometimes does, he recovered from his earlier tanking, won the set and lost only three games in the next two sets.
This recovery cannot be down only to the intervention of Lahyani. Did the words of the umpire help in any way? Probably – they might have stuck somewhere deep inside Kyrgios. If they did, it’s a good thing, but most of the credit for the recovery should go to Kyrgios alone, not to the words of an umpire.
Tennis at every level is a mental game, but it’s also a skilful game. Kyrgios is a skilful player but is also mentally vulnerable. If an umpire’s intervention allowed for the more skilled player to win (which it alone didn’t) is that controversial? The alternative would be to sanction Kyrgios, something which might have had the opposite effect.
What Lahyani did was ensure the sanctity of the contest, something his job calls for. It was not favouritism for Kyrgios; it was an act in favour of the sport.
Kyrgios was not coached to victory; he was reminded that he is a professional tennis player and has certain responsibilities. Some may say that he didn’t need reminding of this fact, but the sometimes bored-looking nature of his play suggests that he often does.
Unfortunately for Herbert, the more skilled played won, and that has to be good for tennis.
Whether it’s aces or races, try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp for great odds and a great punting experience. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.
Former Wimbledon champion, double grand slam winner and Australian Open finalist Garbine Muguruza has announced her retirement from tennis at the age of 30.…
Rafael Nadal has hailed the brilliance of Alex de Minaur, calling him "a great player" after the Australian forced the Spanish legend to say…
The clay season promises to be one of high level and tight margins. With the Monte Carlo open just around the corner, it will…
In incredible scenes, defending champion Carlos Alcaraz's quarter-final clash with Alexander Zverev at Indian Wells was halted abruptly due to a "bee invasion." Less…
Marathon man Jordan Thompson has finally clinched his first ATP Tour title, with the Australian upsetting Norwegian Casper Ruud to lift the trophy in…
Alex de Minaur has earned the perfect 25th birthday present, booking a place in the final of the Rotterdam Open with an emphatic revenge…
