John Farley Spotlight: In Defense of Doug Adler
Doug Adler first came to my attention when I was watching a second-round match between Garbine Muguruza and Camila Giorgi at the French Open in 2015. Doug was doing the commentary. I didn't know who he was, but I immediately liked this guy's voice and style. As the camera panned the sparse Court 2 crowd behind the players benches, he pointed out Giorgi's father Sergio, and then immediately endeared himself to me when he said Sergio is "the man who's got the long, crazy, gray hair - looks a combination of maybe Jerry Garcia and Harpo Marx." I thought, "I like this guy."
As the match proceeded Giorgi, very characteristically and in her quick-playing style, started banging her bazooka shots all over the court, mostly off the court, long or into the tramlines. Muguruza's strategy became very clear and simple. Let her sink herself. Adler noted that it might be time for Giorgi to go to Plan B. However, apparently, Giorgi was unaware of the concept of a Plan B, as she continued to bang away as we watched her unforced error numbers ascend into the stratosphere. Adler made the point quite gracefully that maybe it was time for her to have a seasoned coach who could help her respond better to the dynamics of a match and change her tactics if the game plan was not working. The father/coach thing was maybe not working for her and Adler, dutifully and perhaps bravely, offered that perspective to his viewers.
That he did that I also liked, for what is "commentary," if it is not to "comment" on what is going on and the forces that might be shaping the match that aren't so obvious to the viewer. Anybody can sit there and tell us what we can plainly see - the score, the stats that appear on the screen, a players height, or who won the coin toss. The lone commentator on a match has to be both the "give'em-the-facts" guy and the color commentator. Adler, colorfully gives the whole package.
So I was taken aback when I read recently that Doug Adler was dismissed by ESPN for a comment he made in a match at the Australian Open this year between Stefanie Voegele and Venus Williams. He referred to a tactic that Venus was using as a "guerrilla effect." His exact words were: "You'll see Venus move in, and put the guerrilla effect on. Charging." Again, he was helping the viewer better understand the dynamics of the match they were watching, specifically, the tactic that Venus was using - aggressive, perhaps unexpected moves, typical of guerrilla-type warfare. This term, guerrilla effect, is not a new term in the tennis world.
So.. what happens? The tennis social media goes nuts accusing Adler of being a racist because what they heard was Adler calling Venus a gorilla. The saying goes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You could also say that baseness is in the mind of the listener. It was the social media mob that brought up the connection between an African-American tennis legend and a gorilla, not Doug Adler. It was the social media mob who dishonored Venus by drawing attention to this baseness and slandering Doug Adler. And it was the social media mob rule that ESPN acceded to and in so doing validated the mob's coarse perception and slandering Doug Adler. There was no racism on his part. It was mistakenly and, apparently, hysterically deduced by the social media mob. Don't you think that if Adler were really a racist that quality would have become apparent at various times over his many years of broadcasting matches for ESPN? Did this man who so dedicatedly gave himself to the sport, calling matches with such insightful and edifying commentary, respected by the players and his peers alike, suddenly become a racist?
In the Bhagavad-Gita, a Vedic text usually associated with the culture of India, a bit of advice Arjuna (the greatest warrior of the age) receives from Lord Krishna (the embodiment of righteousness) is that the criterion of right and wrong should always be applied first and, only secondarily, the criterion of loss and gain. If the decision is right, the gain will automatically be there.
The criterion for ESPN's decision regarding the dismissal of Doug Adler was obviously loss and gain. In the face of end-of-year monthly subscriber losses exceeding the losses of all other sports cable networks combined, ESPN bowed to the pressures of the social media mob instead of standing by their man who they knew was being unjustly perceived for his comment regarding Venus's tactics on court. It seems to me, it would have been right to stand by their man and let the usually short-lived media outburst die out. Now what have you got ESPN - a few placated tweeters out there, complicity in the dishonoring of Venus by validating the social media mobs perception and demands, a loss of integrity in the eyes of many of us, the loss of a popular and competent commentator, the continued loss of your subscriber base, and now, probably, a multi-million dollar lawsuit from a man who had been loyal to you, a man you and the social media mob you deferred to have slandered? This is what the application of the criterion of loss and gain first will get you. What virtue is there in that?
Venus, in her graciousness, in commenting on this incident said, "I pay attention and address situations that are noteworthy." She had nothing more to say. To her, it was not noteworthy. I agree with you Venus.
I feel, as many others do, Doug Adler deserves an apology from ESPN and his job back. So when I tune in to the French Open 2017 and watch one of my favorites, Garbine Muguruza, stride onto Philippe Chatrier to defend her title, I'd like to hear the voice of Doug Adler doing the commentary.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
As the match proceeded Giorgi, very characteristically and in her quick-playing style, started banging her bazooka shots all over the court, mostly off the court, long or into the tramlines. Muguruza's strategy became very clear and simple. Let her sink herself. Adler noted that it might be time for Giorgi to go to Plan B. However, apparently, Giorgi was unaware of the concept of a Plan B, as she continued to bang away as we watched her unforced error numbers ascend into the stratosphere. Adler made the point quite gracefully that maybe it was time for her to have a seasoned coach who could help her respond better to the dynamics of a match and change her tactics if the game plan was not working. The father/coach thing was maybe not working for her and Adler, dutifully and perhaps bravely, offered that perspective to his viewers.
That he did that I also liked, for what is "commentary," if it is not to "comment" on what is going on and the forces that might be shaping the match that aren't so obvious to the viewer. Anybody can sit there and tell us what we can plainly see - the score, the stats that appear on the screen, a players height, or who won the coin toss. The lone commentator on a match has to be both the "give'em-the-facts" guy and the color commentator. Adler, colorfully gives the whole package.
So I was taken aback when I read recently that Doug Adler was dismissed by ESPN for a comment he made in a match at the Australian Open this year between Stefanie Voegele and Venus Williams. He referred to a tactic that Venus was using as a "guerrilla effect." His exact words were: "You'll see Venus move in, and put the guerrilla effect on. Charging." Again, he was helping the viewer better understand the dynamics of the match they were watching, specifically, the tactic that Venus was using - aggressive, perhaps unexpected moves, typical of guerrilla-type warfare. This term, guerrilla effect, is not a new term in the tennis world.
So.. what happens? The tennis social media goes nuts accusing Adler of being a racist because what they heard was Adler calling Venus a gorilla. The saying goes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You could also say that baseness is in the mind of the listener. It was the social media mob that brought up the connection between an African-American tennis legend and a gorilla, not Doug Adler. It was the social media mob who dishonored Venus by drawing attention to this baseness and slandering Doug Adler. And it was the social media mob rule that ESPN acceded to and in so doing validated the mob's coarse perception and slandering Doug Adler. There was no racism on his part. It was mistakenly and, apparently, hysterically deduced by the social media mob. Don't you think that if Adler were really a racist that quality would have become apparent at various times over his many years of broadcasting matches for ESPN? Did this man who so dedicatedly gave himself to the sport, calling matches with such insightful and edifying commentary, respected by the players and his peers alike, suddenly become a racist?
In the Bhagavad-Gita, a Vedic text usually associated with the culture of India, a bit of advice Arjuna (the greatest warrior of the age) receives from Lord Krishna (the embodiment of righteousness) is that the criterion of right and wrong should always be applied first and, only secondarily, the criterion of loss and gain. If the decision is right, the gain will automatically be there.
The criterion for ESPN's decision regarding the dismissal of Doug Adler was obviously loss and gain. In the face of end-of-year monthly subscriber losses exceeding the losses of all other sports cable networks combined, ESPN bowed to the pressures of the social media mob instead of standing by their man who they knew was being unjustly perceived for his comment regarding Venus's tactics on court. It seems to me, it would have been right to stand by their man and let the usually short-lived media outburst die out. Now what have you got ESPN - a few placated tweeters out there, complicity in the dishonoring of Venus by validating the social media mobs perception and demands, a loss of integrity in the eyes of many of us, the loss of a popular and competent commentator, the continued loss of your subscriber base, and now, probably, a multi-million dollar lawsuit from a man who had been loyal to you, a man you and the social media mob you deferred to have slandered? This is what the application of the criterion of loss and gain first will get you. What virtue is there in that?
Venus, in her graciousness, in commenting on this incident said, "I pay attention and address situations that are noteworthy." She had nothing more to say. To her, it was not noteworthy. I agree with you Venus.
I feel, as many others do, Doug Adler deserves an apology from ESPN and his job back. So when I tune in to the French Open 2017 and watch one of my favorites, Garbine Muguruza, stride onto Philippe Chatrier to defend her title, I'd like to hear the voice of Doug Adler doing the commentary.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Wow that was well written Mr Farley.
ReplyDelete