On Thursday, the Paraguayan player Adolfo Daniel Vallejo was eliminated in the second round of the tournament
after an intense 5-hour match with French 17-year-old Moïse Kouamé. But instead of admitting he was bested by the new prodigy, Vallejo argued that, had the match been judged by a man, and not umpire Ana Carvalho, the outcome would have been different. Zero points for originality.
“This sort of match needs to be umpired by a man.” Vallejo told
Clay, “It’s very difficult for a woman to do it.” Ah yes, because it’s famously very difficult for a woman to see where a ball hits the ground. When asked if he really meant to say that a woman couldn’t ump this type of match, Vallejo doubled down.
“It has to be refereed by a man, because it’s a very demanding crowd and you need a lot of strength to go against the crowd,” Vallejo said. Indeed, the crowd at Roland Garros has a reputation for being more boisterous, especially in recent years, unlike Wimbledon, where the crowd is so quiet and polite that
Hugh Grant might fall asleep at any second. “The crowd was very out of line,” Vallejo added, “but I understand they’re supporting their compatriot. It’s quite an intense crowd and that’s why I was prepared; I already knew it would be like that and, to be honest, it didn’t harm me, but rather strengthened him.” Yep, that’s typically how home-field advantages work!
And while it’s not uncommon for players to be upset with the umpires after a loss, it’s absurd to think that a male umpire’s “strength” would have any effect on deterring a French crowd from cheering on their country. Have you met the French?