Tennis

[vinteuil]

Very satisfactory outcome in the men's singles final.

[Lat-Literal]

Very satisfactory outcome in the men's singles final.

[Nick Armstrong]

Very satisfactory outcome in the men's singles final.

Thanks v, I was feeling ever so slightly (ever so slightly) guilty that my heart leapt when I saw the result...

[jayne lee wilson]

Thanks v, I was feeling ever so slightly (ever so slightly) guilty that my heart leapt when I saw the result...

I wouldn't normally bother on such a thread, but - Murray's 5th defeat in an Australian final not enough to provoke just a little sympathy? Or is there some in-joke here...?

[Lat-Literal]

I wouldn't normally bother on such a thread, but - Murray's 5th defeat in an Australian final not enough to provoke just a little sympathy? Or is there some in-joke here...?

I genuinely meant what I said in my posts but he seems to divide opinion.

Time can change views - I have gone off Djokovic during this tournament!

[vinteuil]

I, too, genuinely meant what I said in my post.

Of course it wd have been even better had Federer or Nadal won. But at least there was the satisfaction that Murray was defeated.

[teamsaint]

I wouldn't normally bother on such a thread, but - Murray's 5th defeat in an Australian final not enough to provoke just a little sympathy? Or is there some in-joke here...?

I find it hard to worry very much about the outcome of any tennis match at any time, but, in the context of Rich, highly talented, seriously over rewarded, fiercely driven person playing a match against another similar, it does seem to me there should be a place for just a teeny bit of sympathy for Minty, if it is his fifth such defeat.

[P. G. Tipps]

I, too, genuinely meant what I said in my post.

Of course it wd have been even better had Federer or Nadal won. But at least there was the satisfaction that Murray was defeated.

Well Federer or Nadal didn't win either and the sacred St Timothy was never that good enough to be in the top league, so awa' an' bile yer heid, ya jealous sassenach!

Hard luck, Andy Murray ... sixth time lucky?

[Dave2002]

I, too, genuinely meant what I said in my post.

Of course it wd have been even better had Federer or Nadal won. But at least there was the satisfaction that Murray was defeated.

I see that schadenfreude is alive and kicking round here. Did you actually see the match, or are you just commenting on the result? Djokovic played superbly, and I am actually coming round to liking him, though I wanted Murray to win. Dogged determination, and a very high degree of skill is seemingly not able to impact against someone who manages to outclass just about everyone else in the world right now. I haven't a clue how Djokovic does it, but than neither I suspect do Federer and Nadal - even Andy. My favourite is Federer, who is still playing very well, but nobody seems to be able to put a dent in Djokovic right now - and he does deserve his position.

Serena was a bit of a surprise, but couldn't hold against Kerber this time round.

[Mary Chambers]

I have no interest in Murray, and I didn't care who won, but I find myself feeling very sorry for him. Being beaten in five finals does seem hard. Perhaps when the baby is born he will realise there are things more important than chasing glittering prizes.

[Lat-Literal]

Belated respects to the family of the great Gerald Williams who began his career on the Croydon Advertiser.

In my humble opinion, he was second only to Dan Maskell in the history of tennis broadcasting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/12115678/Gerald-Williams-commentator-obituary.html

Around the turn of the month, Danny Kelly interviewed Virigina Wade for an hour or two on Talksport.

Now 70, she described herself as a fortunate person who had never known a day when she felt miserable.

It ranged from past times to modern tennis - an unexpected second golden era - and was very uplifting.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

A question.

When tennis is played in the RAH, the court always appears to have been narrowed slightly. I assumed, therefore, that there was some flexibility in the width of the court, but now I understand that the dimensions are fixed.

It could just be the camera position being different in the RAH. Or it could be the organisers having to cheat a little, owing to the restricted space.

I hope it's the former.

[Lat-Literal]

A question.

When tennis is played in the RAH, the court always appears to have been narrowed slightly. I assumed, therefore, that there was some flexibility in the width of the court, but now I understand that the dimensions are fixed.

It could just be the camera position being different in the RAH. Or it could be the organisers having to cheat a little, owing to the restricted space.

I hope it's the former.

Erm........this is the best I can do, not that it provides a clear answer:

http://www.royalalberthall.com/about-the-hall/news/2013/december/turning-the-hall-into-a-tennis-court/

A belated double well done to Andy Murray.

[french frank]

When tennis is played in the RAH, the court always appears to have been narrowed slightly. I assumed, therefore, that there was some flexibility in the width of the court, but now I understand that the dimensions are fixed.

The arena at its widest point is approx 20m; a doubles court is 11m wide. This is a diagram of an official tennis court:



We normally see a foreshortened view.

[alywin]

A question.

When tennis is played in the RAH, the court always appears to have been narrowed slightly. I assumed, therefore, that there was some flexibility in the width of the court, but now I understand that the dimensions are fixed.

It could just be the camera position being different in the RAH. Or it could be the organisers having to cheat a little, owing to the restricted space.

I hope it's the former.

I remember going to watch Davis Cup and Wightman Cup (ladies', US vs. GB) matches at the RAH, back around 1980. Even if they *had* shrunk the court slightly for the "golden oldies" matches which the place now hosts, I can't see that they could have done so for professional-level matches. Given how important the geometry of the court is to players, I'm sure it would have thrown them right off their game if that had been the case: serves missing the lines, and so on. Actually, I did hear of an instance where some player or other was so totally perturbed because his shots kept unexpectedly going out that the court was re-measured, and found to be several inches too small! Can't remember where or when this was, although I think it was fairly recently.