Conflict of interest turns bogus à la Ivanovic, coach and Adidas

Also Published on Sportingo 10 June 2008

I don’t know what Ana Ivanovic’s coach Sven Groeneveld is thinking [drinking], but I do hope there are no other coaches in tennis or in any competitive individual sport that drink or think like him. Groeneveld’s decision not to be in the stadium for the women’s single final on Saturday at the French Open because he also works for Adidas, the same clothing company that sponsors Dinara Safina, the opposing finalist, boggles the mind slightly to say the least. The grand slam is the epitome of every tennis player’s dream. And their coaches some of whom have been with their wards since they just left diapers will naturally look forward to a day the players will have a chance to achieve this dream.

After reading Matt Cronin’s piece and Groeneveld’s excuse yesterday Friday before the final, I went to bed an Ana Ivanovic fan, praying she will win today, in spite of the fairy tale drama a Safina win would have bestowed on the sport to crown the last two weeks. The strength of character that Ivanovic showed in that match, in which some players would have wobbled not seeing for the second consecutive time in a year, their coach not being in the stand, would endear her to me for a long time to come.  Gronenveld was not in the stand during her drubbing by Justin Henin for the same bogus reason of clothing and shoes accessories almost exactly a year ago and one cannot help but question his motivation and whether such coaches are appropriate for the good of the sport, even with their technical capability.

As I turned in my bed last night, my mind kept wondering to another competitive slugfest, boxing, and the great matches it used to stage years back. What could have been the outcome of Ali – Frazier without Angelo Dundee in the ring side, or how history books would have written about the Sugar Ray–Thomas Hearns first fight without the legendary line from Dundee, ‘You are blowing it son, you are blowing it!’, or Tyson’s battle for the world title without Cus D’Amato and Kevin Rooney. One might argue that it is not the same sport and unlike boxing the presence of the trainer in tennis, where he or she is resigned to a gentrified frustration to only look but not to give advice to the player, is not necessary. Apart from the obvious fact that this rule actually needs to change – the WTA made some trials last year, but the rule does not cover all tournaments yet and does not apply to the slams or to men’s tennis – the purpose of being there is not just for that particular match, but present potential glimpse of nuggets for future matches. These are glimpses that we cannot glean from watching on television screens alone.

Ana Ivanovic begins Monday world number 1, and one with a major championship under her belt, sash, around her belly button, or whatever young girls wear these days. This feat is a testament to years of hard work by her, her family and her team, which Gronenveld is a critical part of. I really do not know what kind of job Gronenveld is doing for Adidas or whether Adidas is footing the bill for his work with Ivanovic. Whatever role it is, a conflict of interest that deprives him of watching the joys of Ivanovic on Saturday needs to be reappraised and a choice need to be made, and not just by him. If Ivanovic really wants to be a great player like Justine Henin and others she has mentioned, it will surely be helpful to have a coach whose undivided attention can be counted on, and whose conflict of interest would not be a handicap at critical moments. If Adidas is behind the stipulation that a coach cannot be seen rooting for one of his players, if the adversary is also an Adidas sponsored player, this company needs to think again for the benefit of the sport. It has just deprived Groeneveld of a wonderful sensation on Philip Chatrier last Saturday, and it is a great pity, as it is not unavoidable.