Tennis

[P. G. Tipps]

Back from Pride a bit early aren't you Tippster

They wouldn't let me into the House of Lords, Mr GG ...

[Lat-Literal]

Tattoos used to be very modest and they represented the sort of masculinity that opposed a fascism which effetely tattooed people being led into concentration camps. Now they are everywhere and glaring and they are probably supposed to denote in both sexes a personal priority for sex, that is, among those who have a sheep like mentality and an appearance once "inked" that ironically is devoid of sexuality. In my humble opinion. But then I am the kind of man who has no intention of going grey or going bald and my face and body are my face and body and there is nothing I can do about it other than to have the last laugh. I'm not seeking compensation. And I am sort of surprised that competitive women whether genuinely powerful or on a supermarket till bought into the most ludicrous stereotypical male model with the idea that they could compete with it. What the hell is there about it that suggests any competition? The blandness appalls me. But then it's all imported American culture. The part that links the Mad Max films via circus fairgrounds to their trailer parks.

Anyone with any views on the latest at Wimbledon?

[P. G. Tipps]

Tattoos used to be very modest and they represented the sort of masculinity that opposed a fascism which effetely tattooed people being led into concentration camps. Now they are everywhere and glaring and they are probably supposed to denote in both sexes a personal priority for sex and yet while having a sheep like mentality and an appearance once inked that ironically is devoid of sexuality. In my humble opinion. But then I am the kind of man who has no intention of going grey or going bald and my face and body are my face and body and there is nothing I can do about it other than to have the last laugh. And I am sort of surprised that competitive women whether genuinely powerful or on a supermarket till bought into the most ludicrous stereotypical male model with the idea that they could compete with it. What the hell is there about it that suggests any competition? The blandness appalls me.

Anyone with any views on the latest at Wimbledon?

It's wholly unnerving. One just doesn't expect to see Ladies With Tattoos at Wimbledon ... at least on court. They'll be playing golf at Muirfield next ...

Oh yes, the Tennis. Both Federer and Nadal look unstoppable yet I confidently predict that at least one will be stopped ... and there is Djoko. I just don't fancy the chances of Sir Andrew Barron Murray this year, I'm afraid. He is ambling along like he is in dire need of a new hip one minute them springing across court like Usain Bolt the next. Yes, I know he has always been a bit like that and he can never be discounted but something tells me this won't be his year, despite his quite remarkable ability to suddenly retreat from a perilous cliff-edge and snatch victory from almost certain defeat. He might be the very man to replace that hapless and embarrassing first-round loser, David Davis, and lead our Brexit negotiating team?

As for the Ladies there is the usual unhelpful media pressure on Ms Konta. I do hope she wins it, though. She seems a very nice, attractive young lady. That's always an excellent start in garnering support, not least with old-fashioned Gentlemen.

[gurnemanz]

Likely Men's Semis are (as seeded) Murray/Nadal, Djoko/Federer. I would pick Nadal v Djok with Nadal to win. Possible new blood outsiders to deliver a surprise are Zverev or Thiem. Cilic can be great on on his day.

Ladies impossible to predict. Could finally be Wozniacki's turn. She looks pretty determined. I think Garcia might beat Konta.

[Lat-Literal]

Likely Men's Semis are (as seeded) Murray/Nadal, Djoko/Federer. I would pick Nadal v Djok with Nadal to win. Possible new blood outsiders to deliver a surprise are Zverev or Thiem. Cilic can be great on on his day.

Ladies impossible to predict. Could finally be Wozniacki's turn. She looks pretty determined. I think Garcia might beat Konta.

I take your point on the four in the men's.

I am only able to support players who I am personally convinced have never taken performance enhancing drugs.

Which rules two of them out - but still enables me to back a British player if push comes to shove.

The tantrums and uncivil behaviour at the tournament in the first week were awful - I wouldn't fine those players but rather focus drug tests on them for the next twelve months.

Memory Lane:

Documentary on Arthur Ashe, the winner of Wimbledon 1975, and the first final I saw on TV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX09hjb4XYA

[Serial_Apologist]

If I'm wrong, and there is a heaven and hell, (not that with my record I'd be likely to end up in the former), my attitude towards watching tennis tournaments can be summed up that, on arrival at the pearly gates, I would be hard pressed to justify to St Peter spending more than one day watching two or four over-fit humans beings repeatedly knocking a ball to each other across a net. But, given that many are so predisposed while I am otherwise meaningfully occupied elsewhere, why is it that the champions are allowed repeatedly to defend their place at the top, depriving others the privilege? Where it down to me, the champion would be allowed to defend his or her championship position just once, then stand down to give others a chance to know the joys of fame. They can then spend the rest of their days writing their memoirs, or training up others for that one, or those two days of self-glorification; or even contributing to making the world a better place.

[vinteuil]

.


... I like your thinking, serial - like it a lot.

And I suggest the same shd apply to politicians too - MPs allowed to defend their place just once.

Perhaps this cd also be extended to Radio 3 'presenters', Radio 3 'poets' - and certain pieces of music played on Radio 3 ....



.

[Richard Tarleton]

C'm on - comparing tennis players to politicians or radio presenters

A better analogy would be saying Nureyev, or Fonyteyn, should only be allowed to defend their title once, after a season. It's an appalling idea, to suggest that we should have been denied the glories of Laver, or Borg, or Federer, year after year, as their glorious talents mature and develop, while young pretenders grow alongside them. Another fitting analogy would be lions, or stags...or perhaps the old king defending the sacred mistletoe until someone capable of slaying him comes along....

[Lat-Literal]

If I'm wrong, and there is a heaven and hell, (not that with my record I'd be likely to end up in the former), my attitude towards watching tennis tournaments can be summed up that, on arrival at the pearly gates, I would be hard pressed to justify to St Peter spending more than one day watching two or four over-fit humans beings repeatedly knocking a ball to each other across a net. But, given that many are so predisposed while I am otherwise meaningfully occupied elsewhere, why is it that the champions are allowed repeatedly to defend their place at the top, depriving others the privilege? Where it down to me, the champion would be allowed to defend his or her championship position just once, then stand down to give others a chance to know the joys of fame. They can then spend the rest of their days writing their memoirs, or training up others for that one, or those two days of self-glorification; or even contributing to making the world a better place.

I'm with RT here.

One point you might have temporarily forgotten s-a is that tennis is not so much a sport as chess with a bit of exercise thrown in. I doubt that there has been anything else on BBC television this week that has been more cerebral. But you do have to watch it from the very beginning to the very end to see how it unfolds like a first rate book on strategy and guile.

Begin with a four hour one to really get yourself into it.

Hope this is helpful.

[Richard Tarleton]

I'm with RT here.

One point you might have temporarily forgotten s-a is that tennis is not so much a sport as chess with a bit of exercise thrown in. I doubt that there has been anything else on BBC television this week that has been more cerebral. But you do have to watch it from the very beginning to the very end to see how it unfolds like a first rate book on strategy and guile.

Begin with a four hour one to really get yourself into it.

Hope this is helpful.

Thanks Lat. Yes, the psychological drama is one of the engrossing aspects. The way the whole dynamic of a contest can change on a single point, or game.

Looking forward to week 2. I don't pay any attention to tennis the rest of the year - can't stand the squeaky shoes in the US open, or the colour scheme at Roland Garros. Tennis on grass is a thing of beauty.

[P. G. Tipps]

The world would be a much happier place if Partick Thistle win the Scottish Premiership, Andy Murray and Johanna Konta win Wimbledon, no more thoroughly irritating 'Gay Brittannia' trails on BBC, wall-to-wall Bruckner on R3, President Donald Trump being just a horrendously bad nightmare, and Brexit cancelled forthwith. Just to mention a tiny few.

Believe me, I know exactly what would make the world a much happier place ...

[Lat-Literal]

Thanks Lat. Yes, the psychological drama is one of the engrossing aspects. The way the whole dynamic of a contest can change on a single point, or game.

Looking forward to week 2. I don't pay any attention to tennis the rest of the year - can't stand the squeaky shoes in the US open, or the colour scheme at Roland Garros. Tennis on grass is a thing of beauty.

I agree with all of the above. We are very similar in our outlook on tennis. It is Wimbledon I am keen on.

Similarly, I don't watch a lot of golf but love the Masters. The beauty of the course, its history, the rules.

[gurnemanz]

Thanks Lat. Yes, the psychological drama is one of the engrossing aspects. The way the whole dynamic of a contest can change on a single point, or game.

Looking forward to week 2. I don't pay any attention to tennis the rest of the year - can't stand the squeaky shoes in the US open, or the colour scheme at Roland Garros. Tennis on grass is a thing of beauty.

And of course the unique and brilliantly idiosyncratic scoring system which offers the potential of riveting tension in an endless variety of point scenarios which even mediocre club players can understand and identify with.

[P. G. Tipps]

Thanks Lat. Yes, the psychological drama is one of the engrossing aspects. The way the whole dynamic of a contest can change on a single point, or game.

Looking forward to week 2. I don't pay any attention to tennis the rest of the year - can't stand the squeaky shoes in the US open, or the colour scheme at Roland Garros. Tennis on grass is a thing of beauty.

I'm much the same regarding other events .. unless Murray reaches the Final in the US, France or in any other Grand Slam event.

There is also the Crowd. Non-Wimbledon crowds look very much like people who have just popped in from work or are bored at home with nothing better to do than go to watch a game of tennis.

At Wimbledon lots of people clearly go for a number of reasons not just the tennis ... social, for example, and a chance to wear some really eccentric hair-styles, clothing and headgear. Then there are the numerous celebrities who catch the camera's 'eye'. Hey, and we might even see and hear Cliff Richard 'sing' during a rain-break. One otherwise beloved member of my family actually hopes this might happen every year ...

However, other beloved members of my family who have actually attended tell me tickets are horrendously expensive, the Centre Court arena is smaller than they imagined, but that it was a day they will never forget ... well maybe that was as much due to then seeing their hero, Sir Andrew, winning than anything else, I suspect!

Ms Sue "Barkers" keeps informing the TV viewer just how wonderful the whole thing is, not least Rafa's naked torso. Whilst I find her gushing enthusiasms rather overpowering at times she may well be right in her oft-expressed opinion. Anything that clearly gives so many of us a little welcome and innocent pleasure, especially in depressing times like these, just has to be A Good Thing?

[Lat-Literal]

I'm much the same regarding other events .. unless Murray reaches the Final in the US, France or in any other Grand Slam event.

There is also the Crowd. Non-Wimbledon crowds look very much like people who have just popped in from work or are bored at home with nothing better to do than go to watch a game of tennis.

At Wimbledon lots of people clearly go for a number of reasons not just the tennis ... social, for example, and a chance to wear some really eccentric hair-styles, clothing and headgear. Then there are the numerous celebrities who catch the camera's 'eye'. Hey, and we might even see and hear Cliff Richard 'sing' during a rain-break. One otherwise beloved member of my family actually hopes this might happen every year ...

However, other beloved members of my family who have actually attended tell me tickets are horrendously expensive, the Centre Court arena is smaller than they imagined, but that it was a day they will never forget ... well maybe that was as much due to then seeing their hero, Sir Andrew, winning than anything else, I suspect!

Ms Sue "Barkers" keeps informing the TV viewer just how wonderful the whole thing is, not least Rafa's naked torso. Whilst I find her gushing enthusiasms rather overpowering at times she may well be right in her oft-expressed opinion. Anything that clearly gives so many of us a little welcome and innocent pleasure, especially in depressing times like these, just has to be A Good Thing?

On the point about cost, I was given a complimentary ticket on my first visit (Bass Charringtons) but always queued afterwards and hardly paid any money for entry into the ground. At around 5pm it used to be possible to join another queue inside to get free or cheap tickets to Centre Court and Court No 1 from people who were leaving. On visits two and three I went on my own there. Late teens, looked much younger, and rather than joining the inside queue I'd just wait on the steps to Centre Court from 4pm. It was obvious why I was there. People took pity and just handed me a ticket. All I'd missed were the first couple of hours. Much has changed but in principle it is probably still a good tip for people who have young relatives. Because many do leave early. Very early. The other tip is to go in week one when if it doesn't work out re the big courts there is plenty to see in the ground. I never went in week two.