The real Tennis thread.

Page 36 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
i could not watch the game live and still didn't...so, cant say anything as a direct witness. but i read some and what really surprised me WHY no one - at least in those articles or the posts here - ...why her accusations of the umpire in sexism are not criticized for their apparent stupidity.

really, :rolleyes: osaka as is a woman too, isn't she..a plain logic and evidence indicate she did not receive a punishment for being a woman. she's plainly a woman that did not break the rules, unlike williams.

i'd kind understand better, while also rejecting, the accusations in the umpire personal dislike or racism...but the sexism accusations i just don't get :Question:
 
She's a sore loser, always has been. I suspect she did her thing partly because she has an incredible sense of entitlement, partly to try and unhinge her opponent. Disgusting, but even more disgusting was how she played the sexism card afterwards. Horrible person. Horrible crowd.
 
Her coach was asked straight forward simply questions for..which he gave direct answers,without hesitation..were you giving signals? Yes..did you know that was against the rules?yes..everybody does it..then he gave Rafael Nadal a push..but not directly under the bus..So Serena is a cheat because Nadal gets signals from the stands...?the coach was clear..the rule is ignored therefore shouldn't be enforced..the guy could be right..but it's pretty bold to second guess the ref..and bolder still to expect a rule change to be done of the fly...during the match...
During the Little League World Series..the umpire in English warned the batter about exiting and re-entering the batter's box..it was clear that the 11 year old not didn't completely understand the warning in a foreign language..when he stepped out a second time..he was called out...the Ump looked like a chump...the tennis officials could have warned Serena's coach away from the action...things may have ended the same...but I doubt it...all involved turned something minor into...this...the officials should have enforced the rule differently...in cycling we have two riders out after crashing into officials...one out after officials tell helicopter to land prematurely..these pesky refs!!!!
Right now Tom Brady is clearly cheating!!!!I want my $20 bet nullified!!!
 
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
Red Rick said:
Rip Del Potro, Djokovic in god mode
Also noted, the behavior by the men in their final and after the match compared to the cartoon the previous night.
Yeah that was good. Tremendous composure from Djokovic to keep his calm in such a hostile crowd again.

After the unexpected return to form of Nadal and Federer last year, it's good to see Djokovic back near his best. But their dominance won't stay good for long. You want the greats competitive, you don't want them unchallenged.

Del Potro once again showed that when it truly matters, he's the Big 3s ***, and that they will dismantle him in any way they want if they're really on form.

In a few weeks, all male Slam champions will be 30 or older. And the last 12 Slams will have been won by players who are over 31 right now.

Even Kei Nishikori, who is a perrenial top 10 player but without a tier 1 title to his name, and fragile as he is, has made it back Slam levels way higher than those of the young guns. Nishikori, who once was part of a younger gen, is also gonna be 29 in december. Raonic be 29 next year.

No player under the age of 25 right now has made a Slam final. Only 2 have made Slam semi's, and Chung and Edmund have been useless ever since. Their semi's are more telling about how hilariously bad the Australian was this year than their own potential.

Tennis is more desperate for fresh blood than any GC rider on a rest day has ever been.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
movingtarget said:
Can't believe the Serena Williams saga is still going..........must be a slow week in tennis.
It's still going on? What happened?
The cartoon printed in an Australian newspaper is being called racist by some people. That's just inflamed the situation. but it seems that the tennis authorities have now flipped and are supporting the umpire and referee.
 
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
Red Rick said:
So Wimbledon will introduce tiebreaks at 12-12 in the 5th set next year.

Let's just break things that aren't broken
US Open already does it from 6-6 in the fifth. Wonder if the French and Australian will follow suit ?
I hope not.

Roland Garros hasn't seen many 5th sets that were that long, and apart from the Roddick-El Aynaoui match from 2003 and a few random Karlovic matches the Australian hasn't had a problem with it either.

For me it's not just this but also a symptom of a much bigger problem that they're trying to fix things in tennis that aren't even remotely broken.
 
I get why they made this decision but I definitely don't like it. I think we live in a time where sports organizations constantly try to shorten their events and make them better paced forgetting that the length of the event is often what made the sport great in the first place. I mean this is a relatively minor rule change and it won't kill Wimbledon but it's just step in the wrong direction and if this trend continues, in 20 years the question might not be if there will be a match tiebreak but if there should even be more then 3 sets.
 
Gigs_98 said:
I get why they made this decision but I definitely don't like it. I think we live in a time where sports organizations constantly try to shorten their events and make them better paced forgetting that the length of the event is often what made the sport great in the first place. I mean this is a relatively minor rule change and it won't kill Wimbledon but it's just step in the wrong direction and if this trend continues, in 20 years the question might not be if there will be a match tiebreak but if there should even be more then 3 sets.
For me the thing that made Grand Slams one of the coolest events in the world was that any match between random players could become its own epic due to no tiebreak 5th sets. Now half the Slams don't have it anymore.

The only reason they made this decision, is that they don't understand what makes their stuff exciting in the first place, or they are aware about what makes their stuff good but they choose to willfully destroy it.

I'm not sure which of the 2 it is.

I have long advocated a different solution to the problem.

Ban John Isner.
 
Red Rick said:
Gigs_98 said:
I get why they made this decision but I definitely don't like it. I think we live in a time where sports organizations constantly try to shorten their events and make them better paced forgetting that the length of the event is often what made the sport great in the first place. I mean this is a relatively minor rule change and it won't kill Wimbledon but it's just step in the wrong direction and if this trend continues, in 20 years the question might not be if there will be a match tiebreak but if there should even be more then 3 sets.
For me the thing that made Grand Slams one of the coolest events in the world was that any match between random players could become its own epic due to no tiebreak 5th sets. Now half the Slams don't have it anymore.

The only reason they made this decision, is that they don't understand what makes their stuff exciting in the first place, or they are aware about what makes their stuff good but they choose to willfully destroy it.

I'm not sure which of the 2 it is.
I dont know

“I personally think a sensible option would be (to start the tiebreaker) at 12-all,” Isner said. “If one person can't finish the other off before 12-all, then do a tiebreaker there. I think it's long overdue. I mean, I'm a big part of that, a big part of this discussion, of course.

“I'm a proponent of changing that rule, for sure,” he added. “I think it needs to be done.”

Anderson, surprisingly thinking lucidly in a BBC TV interview straight off the court, expressed sympathy for Isner being on the losing side of their encounter. He also raised his support for the need of final-set tiebreakers at the Grand Slams.


[...]

Another salient point is the players became very aware that many in the crowd had seen enough of them. At a certain point all the games in the 50-game final set looked the same. The fans started to become vocal with one spectator bold enough to yell out, “I came to see Rafa,” making note the other semifinal between Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic was still to come.

“It's also tough being out there, listening to some of the crowd,” Anderson admitted. “Hopefully they appreciated the battle that we faced out there against each other, John and myself. They've paid to see two matches, and they came pretty close to only seeing one match.”

“At some point in time when it's late in the fifth set, over 20-all, I can feel the crowd, they're pretty antsy for us to get off the court. They've been watching us for over six hours.”

As it turned out the Nadal and Djokovic match, although played with lights under the roof, was suspended with Djokovic leading 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (9).


https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/tennis/wimb/2018/07/13/wimbledon-its-time-change-tiebreak-rule-kevin-anderson-john-isner/784443002/
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
That's because Isner can't do anything but serve, and the people were anxiously waiting for Nadal-Djokovic.

If the 2nd match had gone to 12-12, nobody would've wanted a tiebreak.
The thing is though, a game between Nadal and Djokovic is nowhere near as likely to go to 12-12 as any match played by Isner which means by including a 5th set tiebreak the organizers will mostly shorten matches of mediocre quality. As I've written before, I'm against this rule change anyway, but I think your point isn't 100% valid.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
Red Rick said:
That's because Isner can't do anything but serve, and the people were anxiously waiting for Nadal-Djokovic.

If the 2nd match had gone to 12-12, nobody would've wanted a tiebreak.
The thing is though, a game between Nadal and Djokovic is nowhere near as likely to go to 12-12 as any match played by Isner which means by including a 5th set tiebreak the organizers will mostly shorten matches of mediocre quality. As I've written before, I'm against this rule change anyway, but I think your point isn't 100% valid.
Nadal/Djoko being up next was the only reason people complained. It was a completely unique situation, because it was on CC in a Wimbledon semi, with a more hyped match after it.

Nobody complained at the length of Anderson-Federer, just like last year nobody complained about Nadal-Muller. Nobody complained in 2009 when Federer-Roddick went to 16-14 in the 5th, although I will forever complain about the result.

Ivo Karlovic has played his share of 15-15+ 5th set matches in Australia and Wimbledon, and it's never been an issue.

Hell, even the 70-68 Isner-Mahut match got people excited, and even then it wasn't a problem. It's a once a career situation, that didn't need fixing. And if it needed to be fixed, the super obvious solution was to start play earlier and get rid of the stupendous curfew.

Personally I'm a big advocate of banning Isner too, but I'm not sure that's backed up by trivial stuff like rules.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Gigs_98 said:
Red Rick said:
That's because Isner can't do anything but serve, and the people were anxiously waiting for Nadal-Djokovic.

If the 2nd match had gone to 12-12, nobody would've wanted a tiebreak.
The thing is though, a game between Nadal and Djokovic is nowhere near as likely to go to 12-12 as any match played by Isner which means by including a 5th set tiebreak the organizers will mostly shorten matches of mediocre quality. As I've written before, I'm against this rule change anyway, but I think your point isn't 100% valid.
Nadal/Djoko being up next was the only reason people complained. It was a completely unique situation, because it was on CC in a Wimbledon semi, with a more hyped match after it.

Nobody complained at the length of Anderson-Federer, just like last year nobody complained about Nadal-Muller. Nobody complained in 2009 when Federer-Roddick went to 16-14 in the 5th, although I will forever complain about the result.

Ivo Karlovic has played his share of 15-15+ 5th set matches in Australia and Wimbledon, and it's never been an issue.

Hell, even the 70-68 Isner-Mahut match got people excited, and even then it wasn't a problem. It's a once a career situation, that didn't need fixing. And if it needed to be fixed, the super obvious solution was to start play earlier and get rid of the stupendous curfew.

Personally I'm a big advocate of banning Isner too, but I'm not sure that's backed up by trivial stuff like rules.
Wow, anti Anglo Saxons and Federer.

I know where you hell destination will be: Saxon Switzerland :D

Where you will be forced to watch a never ending cycling tour where the mountain stages never go beyond 1,000 metres in altitude.

But your stint in hell shall not be for eternity. Once you realise that the Tour De France wasn't so bad, those pearly gates await :razz:
 
Paris Djokovic-Federer semifinal can go straight to the asylum.

Federer had all the luck in the world to save all 12 break points and then choked both tiebreaks away like I haven't seen anyone do in a long time.
 
Re: Re:

gregrowlerson said:
Red Rick said:
Gigs_98 said:
Red Rick said:
That's because Isner can't do anything but serve, and the people were anxiously waiting for Nadal-Djokovic.

If the 2nd match had gone to 12-12, nobody would've wanted a tiebreak.
The thing is though, a game between Nadal and Djokovic is nowhere near as likely to go to 12-12 as any match played by Isner which means by including a 5th set tiebreak the organizers will mostly shorten matches of mediocre quality. As I've written before, I'm against this rule change anyway, but I think your point isn't 100% valid.
Nadal/Djoko being up next was the only reason people complained. It was a completely unique situation, because it was on CC in a Wimbledon semi, with a more hyped match after it.

Nobody complained at the length of Anderson-Federer, just like last year nobody complained about Nadal-Muller. Nobody complained in 2009 when Federer-Roddick went to 16-14 in the 5th, although I will forever complain about the result.

Ivo Karlovic has played his share of 15-15+ 5th set matches in Australia and Wimbledon, and it's never been an issue.

Hell, even the 70-68 Isner-Mahut match got people excited, and even then it wasn't a problem. It's a once a career situation, that didn't need fixing. And if it needed to be fixed, the super obvious solution was to start play earlier and get rid of the stupendous curfew.

Personally I'm a big advocate of banning Isner too, but I'm not sure that's backed up by trivial stuff like rules.
Wow, anti Anglo Saxons and Federer.

I know where you hell destination will be: Saxon Switzerland :D

Where you will be forced to watch a never ending cycling tour where the mountain stages never go beyond 1,000 metres in altitude.

But your stint in hell shall not be for eternity. Once you realise that the Tour De France wasn't so bad, those pearly gates await :razz:
Hhahahaha. My hell would have me burning somewhere with Federer telling me "I know how you feel"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY