Gulbis speaks out shock.

Ernests giving everyone the benefit of his insight again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/27645445

Silly Ernests, how dare he suggest women might place having children central to their lives. Predictable squawking, though rational from Sharapova. I guess if he'd said they have it easy and shouldn't be bothered about kids there'd be the same outrage, some things people just get outraged about because they think they're supposed to.

gulbis is basically an attention seeker

he plays nice though

Gulbis knew exactly what the reaction would be, and he got exactly what he wanted - major press coverage, and there will be ALL the press watching at his next match. Oh! and also the Public - well done Ernest - now just play your opponent as you did the Press and Media....what a riot! LOL!

Good player, bad speaker...

 
    Q.  Why do you think it has taken you so long to be sitting in that chair again?
   ERNESTS GULBIS:  You know why (laughter).


   Q.  Well, maybe you just remind us, me.
   ERNESTS GULBIS:  Well, I did a lot of bad decisions career wise.  Maybe not even just bad decisions, but just not paying too much attention to the things what I do, you know, not paying too much attention how to treat my body, how to practice, how to    just overall, you know.  Whenever I was in practice, whenever I was on the court or in gym or in the track, I always work hard. But the things around, surrounded that, the planning, too much up and down, not enough consistent work.  Basically last two years it's been more or less the most consistent work which I did. Before that, you know, I had consistent, let's say, three months of work, but then again something happened or I got sick or went to Latvia and took stupid ten days off, you know, by not doing completely nothing.

These kind of decisions, which were just wrong, you know.  And now nobody even needs to tell me, tell me this, I know exactly what to do even in my days off, you know.  That's the biggest difference.

Yeah, thankfully it took me not longer time, you know.  Basically I jumping in the last train.  I'm 25, so this was my last opportunity to be really successful, I think, and I think I have good seven, eight more years to play in the top level.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/interviews/2014-05-30/201405301401458233669.html


Must be one of his off days, today.

Read It, dont see the problem. Tough for women to have kids while playing, well of course, and its hard for someone who wanst to start a family

I don't think he said anything too offensive. If you want a family it is a very tough sport to be in. I think he generalized too much as I am sure there are lots of women who are willing to put off the kids to have a successful tennis career. Not too much negativity in it just a bit of an overgeneralization. I think he has a real shot against Federer in this match, always feel like Clay should be his best surface with how athletically he moves Gulbis.

Nothing controversial at all.

Medical fact that it is easier for women to fall pregnant in their 20s and early 30s, exactly the period spanned by their tennis career.

Federer is the father of two sets of twins and still plays. There's no way the mother of two sets of twins would still be playing. The pregnancies alone would have lost her two seasons.

It's undoubtedly tougher for women.

@Falzy.. "exactly what I need to do in my days off"... like making such comments.

This "put-kids-at-the-woman's-doorstep-so-I-can-go-drink-my-beer" mindset is such a crass generalization of a chauvinistic attitude, it is laughable. This hunter-gatherer mentality is a nightmare. This is not about equal rights either.

Why is easy for a male to be on tour than it is for a woman to be on tour? Because of gender? If yes, the world needs to get an attitude check and drop this gender bias.

Simon made a faux-pas, this is no better.

But LF, if the reason it's harder to be on tour is that in the procreation deal "she" has a womb and "he" doesn't, what really would you like to see done about this?

Gulbis is an idiot in general. But I'm not sure he's done much wrong? I don't think he said it's easier to be a male player than female - More that its easier for a male player to have kids while on tour, and he doesn't know if his sisters would sacrifice their best lives on tour. I think he'd know his sisters a little better, than all the people being hurt by this.

laverfan wrote:
Why is easy for a male to be on tour than it is for a woman to be on tour? Because of gender?.

Federer has had 4 children and his career has barely missed a beat. Djokovic too is having a child in his peak years.

Would the effects be as limited for anyone from the WTA?

Evonne Goolagong won Wimbledon after having a child but I can't think of anyone else.

Kim Cjlisters come to my mind.

Gulbis is going to beat the golden boy of tennis as well.

TopoftheChops wrote:Gulbis is going to beat the golden boy of tennis as well.

Well, Gulbis might beat Fed. More than likely, though, that he will chuck in the horror match that has been his hallmark over the years.

Well considering laverfan has just accused me of being a chauvinistic pig and thrown the self righteous book i better respond eh...

Obviously its harder to have kids and be on tour as a women because of something they call pregnancy. If a women wishes to start a family a tennis career will in all probability put it off till their 30's, not a problem for all, but it is for some. Not easy for a man either, but they dont have to carry it and deal with the physical consequences for a year.

Federers done very well with kids, thats true, but then he has a fiercely loyal and maternal wife, a stable family situation, more money than sense, several nannies and well off parents. Very few people in life are as lucky as that to have that sort of foundation to just keep going knowing things will be absolutely fine if you do.

For a women to still be successful is to take time off to recover form pregnancy, and have a loving enough husband, and enough money built up to make sure things are stable whilst you go up the rankings again. If things go sour with the husband, likelihood is custody will fall to you, and suddenly things get very, very hard. Kim Clijsters is the only women I can think of whose had that situation, and her comeback was truly remarkable. Whether thats right is another matter, but it IS the fact of the matter at the moment, that biological difference is always the big killer in these arguments.

May I suggest Laverfan that you DO NOT judge me without knowing me properly, I take this seriously... Gulbis comments were a little off the cuff yes, but not that controversial when you think about it.

laverfan wrote:Simon made a faux-pas, this is no better.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but not this. I believe Simon, at the time, was speaking in a relatively official capacity - one of the spokespeople for the players on tour that year, I think - and as such was reflecting what a lot of players thought. Even Murray weighed in afterwards and said that he didn't see how it was fair that ladies could play doubles & singles at the same tournament, whilst the top male players can't do that due to the Bo5 format...a legitimate point that still hasn't been countered by anyone.

Sharapova and her ilk retaliating at the slightest provocation doesn't help matters, and neither does Gulbis running his mouth off. Everyone should sit down and discuss the issues without going to the press first.

*and breathe*

I certainly see the chances of Gulbis very high against Fed master.

bogbrush wrote:But LF, if the reason it's harder to be on tour is that in the procreation deal "she" has a womb and "he" doesn't, what really would you like to see done about this?

I think the statement about 'kids' and their management and delivery hides a larger bias. Tying it to procreation and viability of the species and a similar line of thought ignores the larger perspective. In the narrow procreational sense, I have little I can disagree with.

HM Murdoch wrote:Medical fact that it is easier for women to fall pregnant in their 20s and early 30s, exactly the period spanned by their tennis career.

There are many WTA careers which are exceptions to this on both sides of the 20-30 window. Children can be had later in life, as health and other medical technology can now support.

falzy21 wrote:For a women to still be successful is to take time off to recover form pregnancy, and have a loving enough husband, and enough money built up to make sure things are stable whilst you go up the rankings again.

This narrow focus on pregnancy is (as I responded to BB) not what should be the focus. Bringing up kids is not just a pregnancy and delivery, is it? Is Gulbis referring to a 9-to-12 month window or something longer?

You say a "loving enough husband", so should the responsibility for enough money built up be a joint one between the two partners, correct, not just one or the other mutually exclusively?

falzy21 wrote:If things go sour with the husband, likelihood is custody will fall to you, and suddenly things get very, very hard.

The "divorce" scenario, right after a pregnancy/delivery is rare, unless there are post-partum issues. This statement also implicitly extends the window of Gulbis's statement from 9-12 months to several years. Hence this focus on the biological aspect is no longer relevant. Since it extends beyond a pregnancy/delivery, are you suggesting that a Tennis career should be over, right after the first pregnancy/delivery, since the "woman" will make a "longer" than 12-months commitment to the "kid(s)".

Also, you claim that the "male" gender has more strength? Strength of "what", when judges prefer to award custody, in general to mothers, because in a significant number of cases, it is the "male" that is irresponsible.

falzy21 wrote:Kim Clijsters is the only women I can think of whose had that situation, and her comeback was truly remarkable.

Davenport is another one I can recall, albeit not as successful.

falzy21 wrote:Whether thats right is another matter, but it IS the fact of the matter at the moment, that biological difference is always the big killer in these arguments.

You are admonishing me with "May I suggest Laverfan that you DO NOT judge me without knowing me properly", and yet you want to sit in judgement on "Whether thats right is another matter". Why? Regarding "biological" argument, you are not giving enough credit to the "nurture" part, but just the "physical" aspect, which is, yet again a very "narrow" and archaic perspective.

BTW, I did not accuse a specific person (or you), but an attitude that is prevalent from medieval times about the role of women. Only the first sentence was directed at you, as a specific answer to your question.

I do agree with MaSha...

"I don't think we can take everything serious[ly] when he speaks," said Sharapova, 27, who is also into the fourth round in Paris.

Having children is one of the most enriching, fulfilling and life-changing experiences a person can go through. The relationship between a parent and child is utterly unique. There are many people who have difficulty having children who are willing to spend thousands on medical procedures just to give themselves a chance.

When did society get to the point that thinking this might be more important than a career was seen as offensive?

I can't say I'm offended by it, as I too don't take Gulbis seriously. But his comments are rather illogical. Tennis is a tough sport, if you're not at the top, you're not making much money and not many can make it to the top. Add to that the nomadic nature and lack of true team-mates and it's not a life for everybody (of either gender). But if these factors are not enough to put a young girl off a tennis career, then it's beyond me that the idea of having a family in her late 20's would. By that time, either you've achieved your goals (and can retire happy) or not (when maybe it's the time to review whether to continue tennis as a career anyway).

I presume from Gulbis' comments that most professions are also unsuitable for his sisters too. I mean, they require years of study for a degrees, professional qualifications, establishing yourself on the job...

Evoone Googong Cawley and Kim Clijsters were mentioned as 2 players who won slams as mothers, but there are plenty of examples of women who have won slams and had children after they retired: Evert, Davenport, Graf, Henin to name a few.

There are a couple of mothers I can think of playing currently - more doubles players, actually slam champs in women's or mixed doubles. Cara Black - 2014 earnings of $180K, career earnings of over $7m. Casey Dellacqua - 2014 earnings of $330K, career earnings of $2.3m.

To be honest, I think the impact of the tennis professional life on family life would be as much the impact on a relationship of the constant travelling, the single mindedness required to succeed, the uncertainty of future which could affect either gender.

HM Murdoch wrote:There are many people who have difficulty having children who are willing to spend thousands on medical procedures just to give themselves a chance.

When did society get to the point that thinking this might be more important than a career was seen as offensive?

When it became a single gender's responsibility to provide this "service" to humanity.

Yvonne T wrote:To be honest, I think the impact of the tennis professional life on family life would be as much the impact on a relationship of the constant travelling, the single mindedness required to succeed, the uncertainty of future which could affect either gender.

It should affect either gender equally.

This "woman"="pregnancy" equation is what I have a strong objection to.

No one in this thread has considered that parenting for a desiring couple can be achieved without a physical pregnancy on their own by the process of adoption. There are more modern variants like "surrogacy".

Does this mean that Gulbis's sisters can have a their Tennis career, be a parent, and enjoy both? In his specific case, perhaps their father, who is known to be very wealthy can provide appropriate support for them to have either or both.

Perhaps Serena wants to become a parent, and can ask Vaidisova to be a surrogate, or adopt an Afghan orphan.

Im not interested im feminist semantics with you LF, I respect women immensely but I also understand the realistic expectations of the world, they arent all right but right now thats how it is.

You personally singles me out only to throw your crap at me, and youve peed me right off. m done with you, DO NOT reply to me.

I've no issue with what he said, but why on earth does he need to say it in the first place

We now seem to have celebrity soap box - where any dodgy character can be listened to no matter how lacking in knowledge their comments are.

Question Time is now full of the, because of course, they have all the solutions to society's problems   

I blame Live Aid - it's actually made these celebrity's think they can actually change the world

@Falzy21... thanks for your comments.

@BanBro... Do not know if you read US news but US Basketball (NBA) vs Donald Stirling is turning out to be a media circus as well. Regarding Gulbis's comments, this is not the first time he has made insensitive remarks. I have more respect for his Tennis than I do for his intellectual abilities.

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:There are many people who have difficulty having children who are willing to spend thousands on medical procedures just to give themselves a chance.

When did society get to the point that thinking this might be more important than a career was seen as offensive?

When it became a single gender's responsibility to provide this "service" to humanity.

Ah right, so having a child is a "service" now, is it? Women have no interest in having children and are forced into it by their male overlords?

Modern feminism is so lovely.

Have you let Lindsey Davenport back in the sisterhood yet? What a loser you must think she is. Not only did she undermine society by having a child before her career was over, the wimp missed 18 months of tennis! Federer only missed one tournament when he recently had kids! Apparently it isn't any tougher for women in tennis than men if they want to have children, so I have no idea what Davenport was doing in that time.

HM Murdoch wrote:

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:There are many people who have difficulty having children who are willing to spend thousands on medical procedures just to give themselves a chance.

When did society get to the point that thinking this might be more important than a career was seen as offensive?

When it became a single gender's responsibility to provide this "service" to humanity.

Ah right, so having a child is a "service" now, is it? Women have no interest in having children and are forced into it by their male overlords?

Modern feminism is so lovely.

Have you let Lindsey Davenport back in the sisterhood yet? What a loser you must think she is. Not only did she undermine society by having a child before her career was over, the wimp missed 18 months of tennis! Federer only missed one tournament when he recently had kids! Apparently it isn't any tougher for women in tennis than men if they want to have children, so I have no idea what Davenport was doing in that time.

Did Gulbis say anywhere in his interview what would be his responsibilities to children he may have in the future? Why is

"A woman needs to enjoy life a little bit more; needs to think about family, needs to think about kids.".

Where is the thinking that a male should do when on tour and wants to have children?

I think Davenport's decision was very brave to have her first in 2006 (since then three more) and still stayed in touch with Tennis, till almost 2011. Very well supported by her partner, off course.

Karolina Sprem (married to Baghdatis) retired due to injury in 2011 (not due to child birth) and had her first child in October, 2012.

These are fantastic women, very ably supported by their partners. Baggy did not give up his career, did he? Why should the Gulbis sisters? To think about having children?

I wonder how Gulbis would be in a similar role?

Life is tough on tour, for either gender. Making it relatively tougher, by adding the children into the equation, and solely making one gender responsible for it is not fair.

If women want to have children, men also do, correct, but without giving up their careers?

As Falzy points out, I also understand the realistic expectations of the world should not be imposed on just one gender.

Little unfair Laver. Artificial Insemination isn't an exact science, well it is, but it isn't a simple matter. No guarantees with it, and it's a biological fact that a woman in her early to mid twenties is more easily capable of recreating. It's also a biological fact that the later a woman has a baby, the greater the risk of complications. The same can't be said on either front for the male. A female player has to weigh those risks, a male player doesn't. I mean Hugh Hefner had a kid at 63, and he isn't even a wild outlier (my granddad had my uncle at a similar age, much younger wife obviously).

Medical science is not exact, neither is nature. There is a lot of focus in this discussion on age and physical aspects of child-bearing of a gender, but none on non-physical aspects.

kingraf wrote:A female player has to weigh those risks, a male player doesn't.

I am aware of Down Syndrome and other challenges that are there. There are risks to both mother and child.

Should such risks not be borne by both partners? When there is a child which is borne out of a riskier situation, whatever be the age (and age difference) of partners, is the issue only a physical one?

For example, does a 63-year old retired male Tennis player married to a 20 year-old female Tennis not have any responsibility, if there is an abnormal offspring? Also, think about the reverse case.

My objection is to this mindset which is the exoneration of a specific gender (i.e. male) in case of any such issues.

LF, where are you trying to go with this?  You seem to want men and women to be symmetrical in this regard.  Seems to me it is pretty clear - whether you like it or not - there are physiological differences between men and women that make it not so.  In addition, there may well be psychological differences too.

What you are doing here is reminding me of what HE once said:

Biology and Nature are enemies to be overcome.

I hope you are not also taking the same view.

The female makes a far greater investment in reproduction than the male, for the obvious reason she can only reproduce once a year, he can do so hundreds of times.

That simple fact underpins hardwired behavioural differences, one of which is that females are far more likely to place their offspring as the top priority. I recall hearing how faced with a catastrophe most men would rescue their wife ahead of an infant whereas virtually all women chose the infant over the husband. It's fairly simple to see why, and all based on biological calculations of investment.

summerblues wrote:LF, where are you trying to go with this?  You seem to want men and women to be symmetrical in this regard.  

Yes. There will always be individual differences and unique variables to deal with.

summerblues wrote:Seems to me it is pretty clear - whether you like it or not - there are physiological differences between men and women that make it not so.  In addition, there may well be psychological differences too.

What you are doing here is reminding me of what HE once said:

Biology and Nature are enemies to be overcome.

I hope you are not also taking the same view.

Thinking and cognitive processes are not the domain of a specific gender, even if the fire-and-forget mind set of a male and the physical aspects are (thanks BB, for that mental image. ).

I deal with a quite a few Lesbian and Gay couples, and the trials and tribulations of parenthood get multiplied and magnified many a times.

Biology and Nature == Old Age and the resulting fear of death (the glass is half-empty, etc.). BTW, have not heard from either HE, H-n or LKv2. Lydian does pop-in occasionally.

Instead of dissuading the female gender from becoming professional tennis players, what can Gulbis do to help make it better for them (including his sisters)?

@BB... I understand the survival instinct aspects, should playing Tennis go into the same category?

This certainly deviated from from the context it was meant for.

The heart of the matter for me is down to individual choice. I think the suggestion that women take on more of the parenting burden is true. It is more of a culture than nature I think. Can a female player play on the tour and have a child? Of course they can. It is down to that individual whether they want to prioritise their careers. Yes it seems men are able to maintain their careers whilst being parents, but I recall golfer Johnny Miller who rarely played outside the states so he could remain a permanent feature in his children's life.

I am all for equality, but it is not impossible. Paula Radcliffe another example of an athlete who had kids and still continued with her career.

LF

Survival of genes is the only imperative that drives us. We can fiddle about at the edges - even not having kids - but the underpinning drives are undeniable.

In this context there's no getting away that having kids is a massively bigger deal for women. I'm sure there's plenty of guys on the tour who have kids and don't even know it, and wouldn't want to if they could.

Try to explain to Evert, Martina or Serena they are failures because thay didn't have children before 30 or not at all. On the other hand thay reached the top of their profession, made tons of money and lived a life most can only dream of. Personally I don't think they  have made the wrong  choice. As well as I don't think that an ordinary woman who has done nothing in life other than growing a  family, necessarily should feel better and happier than them. And btw; who the hell is this guy to tell  grown up professional athletes what they should and shouldn't do and why did he come out with that rant in the first place? Was that for the sake of humanity as a whole, or he just felt a little bored talking ordinary tennis?

Over achievers in tennis and sport in general are often those who stay as away as possible from the limelight, there must be a good reason Gulbis guy .......

He was asked a question about his sisters and answered it honestly.

I'm now beginning to think that the reaction to his comment is way OTT

Liked the way he addressed the French crowd, yesterday and think we need characters like him in our game

Yes, he shut up about things outside tennis - but let's give the guy a break

"A woman needs to enjoy life a little bit more; needs to think about family, needs to think about kids."

He might, but from his replay it looks like he is explaining us all what women like and should do.....

In his presser after the Federer match he was very composed, modest in victory, and perfectly likeable. I reckon he'd be great company over a few pints.

with his talent he should do a lot better than he actually does. and thats only thing he should worry about

naxroy wrote:with his talent he should do a lot better than he actually does. and thats only thing he should worry about

Quite agreed.

Just seen Lindsey Davenport on Europsort, talking the more commonsense than any of the male summarisers put together (OK, apart from Jim Courier   )

It's good to know that having kids hasn't affected her   

This comment might belong on the Bartoli thread, but Davenport is excellent. Wonderful player, nice person and good summariser and pundit.

laverfan wrote:

naxroy wrote:with his talent he should do a lot better than he actually does. and thats only thing he should worry about

Quite agreed.

Agree that he shouldn't be thinking outside of tennis?

Perhaps we have too many clones who talk like robots and not enough frank speakers who think for themselves.

bogbrush wrote:

laverfan wrote:

naxroy wrote:with his talent he should do a lot better than he actually does. and thats only thing he should worry about

Quite agreed.

Agree that he shouldn't be thinking outside of tennis?

Perhaps we have too many clones who talk like robots and not enough frank speakers who think for themselves.

Brutal honesty has it's place, as does thinking for oneself.

Gulbis can talk as much outside Tennis as he wants, and he can air it in public as much as he wants. I am glad his racquet talks much better than does his mouth, as Nax says.

I tend to agree with JK that he should not have generalized a comment specific to his sisters, to a wider gender-specific comment. One is a personal observation, the other is a recommendation for an entire class. He could have clearly articulated such a difference.

What is good for the goose, is not always good for the gander.

its great when players actually talk and dont follow the political correct answers.

its not so nice when you can clearly see that a player is just aiming to be the centre of attention everytime. and this is gulbis case
on the other hand
this is his first semifinal in a slam after 7 years, and to be honest when he reached QF here in 2008 I expected a lot more from him. thats why I said what I said