A. Jaeger - I lost '83 Wimbledon final on purpose

The problem is...we'll never know because she had a 100,000,000,000-1 chance of beating her anyway. And Martina was so dominate and ruthless that her beating Jaeger like drum was pretty easy to fathom.

So maybe Andrea threw the match but it didn't matter she could've fought her ass off and lost just as easily

 

I would like to announce that I've thrown the last 17 APSE 100,000 - 250,000 columnist contests.

 

It's like some of you don't even know what it's like to have principles, to understand that sportsmanship goes beyond shaking the other team's hand at the end of the game.

Does it mean she should have not played to her best in the finals? Probably no. But I absolutely believe someone would be capable of struggling with the decision and in the end deciding to let the other person win. (It is irrelevant whether she was an underdog or was likely to lose anyway--she had a chance to win and it's believable that she didn't take it)

Some of you need to stop pocketing your ethics from American Idol.

 

I'd like to add that Dennis Eckersley allowed Kirk Gibson to hit that home run on purpose so Eckersley wouldn't have to pitch to Steve Sax.

 

My big question is: If she threw that match on purpose, why are we only now hearing about it 25 years later?

I doubt very seriously Andrea Jaeger would have won that match if she were playing her best tennis. Not against Martina Navratilova in 1983.

And even if she did lose on purpose, what would she have to gain from a 25-years-later admission?

 

I think she already made this claim on an ESPN feature last fall. Still have not heard from Martina on this, however.

 

We've seen the effect their respective fathers have had on Jennifer Capriati and Mary Pierce.
You're telling me that an argument with her father couldn't have sent Jaeger into a 24-hour (non-drunken) stupor during which this teen could not possibye have cared less about winning some tennis match that was 100 times more important to dad than to her?
As a total aside, but hardly unrelated, you are calling into question the integrity of a nun, which immediately qualifies this as one of the more dubious threads of the summer.

 

She and Lt. Dan are making their peace with God.

 

Sounds like she has psyched herself into believing this crap over the years to rationalize the biggest loss of her life.

Let's not forget that Martina beat her 7-6, 6-1 in the French Open finals the year before. So if Martina -- on her worst surace -- could straight-set Jaeger, why wouldn't she trounce her again 13 months later on her best surface?

 

What ethics? She didn't purposely try to sabotage Martina. She didn't kneecap her. She should have either played her best or withdrawn if she thinks she was such a nuisance.

 

Which is why I said that she probably made the wrong decision. But many posts in this thread suggest it's not even a possibility to have the sort of integrity that would lead you to question whether your actions have unfairly disturbed your opponent.

We've all come to believe that it isn't cheating if you don't get caught. We've all come to suspect everyone else is a cheater, and many among us still cheer the cheater on the field. If she's telling the truth, and I don't have much doubt that she is, it's an interesting insight into integrity and sportsmanship.

Also, the article did not suggest that the fight with her father had anything to do with her decision. That's just speculation.

 

Thousands of pedophile priests laff at that statement.