Wimbledon

[Lat-Literal]

It's still there - must be the same one, as the roof's been closed since yesterday.

Sometimes it looks like there is a fine water shower there - I think it must be flying insects of some sort.

Bad luck to Nadal but Federer's three point grand slam lead remains intact.

I saw most of the fifth set.

I didn't watch Kerber v Williams.

[Dave2002]

I didn't watch Kerber v Williams.

Sadly Serena had too many unforced errors, which considerably influenced her outcome. All of her other stats were good, IIRC, but she gave away enough freebies, and at critical points, to make winning difficult, and in the end she couldn’t recover. She was gracious about it all though

[Lat-Literal]

Sadly Serena had too many unforced errors, which considerably influenced her outcome. All of her other stats were good, IIRC, but she gave away enough freebies, and at critical points, to make winning difficult, and in the end she couldn’t recover. She was gracious about it all though

Margaret Court is one point ahead on grand slam wins (24) but slips to fifth place in the open era (11). The open era stats are Serena Williams 23 (7-3-7-6), Graf 22 (4-6-7-5), Evert 18 (2-7-3-6) and Navratilova 18 (3-2-9-4). Personally, I feel that the stats flatter Graf especially and also Evert and don't do justice to Navratilova although her 9 Wimbledon wins skew the perceptions. I accept Wimbledon fans possibly underrated Evert, even though she was rightly popular, given that 15 of her 18 victories were elsewhere. Billie Jean King should by rights be much higher but the degree of competition at any given time does make a difference - arguably Graf and Serena Williams have had periods when they were in a league of their own.

This is my 44th year of following Wimbledon - the first final I watched on TV was Ashe/Connors (1975) - whereas it is my 49th year of following football (1970) which is kinda scary!

Wow didn't it just *phew*

Loved that by the time Nadal saved the first match point to take it to 8 - 8 in the final set, all three commentators were more or less silenced by the brilliance of it all.

.

PS Agree with points above about the comparative tedium of the first semi-final, and about the worst part of it being having to endure (which I didn't) nearly 7 hours of John Inverdale (he's almost in the Tom Service category of 'fast-forward in order to avoid' in this household)

It looks like the fifth set of the mens' is going to have a tie break in the future at 12-12. I'd say it is inevitable but I think that the change will be rather sad. It seems to me that it is no coincidence that Isner at 6 foot 10 has been involved in the two longest matches and that Friday's match was with Anderson at 6 foot 8. I suggest that this needs to be explored more - ie to give consideration that it is a player's height which leads to the odd situations. Much as boxing involves different weights, there are arguments for having different heights of net.

[french frank]

Much as boxing involves different weights, there are arguments for having different heights of net.

e.g. John Isner v e.g. Chuck McKinley? Or 6ft 10'' v 5ft 8''?

[Lat-Literal]

e.g. John Isner v e.g. Chuck McKinley? Or 6ft 10'' v 5ft 8''?

Yes - I very much accept that point. Michael Chang was 5' 8/9 too. I could start talking about algorithms in such situations vis a vis the net height but then it does get too complicated. I don't see the potential for classes vis a vis personal height either. But perhaps more realistically, they could look at the range of heights and the average today compared with the 1990s, 1980s or earlier. The trend is clearly upwards but, for example, to what extent is 6 foot 6 plus typical or unusual. If there is a link between considerable height and long fifth sets as seems likely, to change a rule for a few exceptions seems overly dramatic. To change it on the grounds that many are now of considerable height might well be appropriate.

Whatever, it will change, not least because of the one sidedness of this final unless there is a dramatic change there. I think then we should at least be looking at retaining the unlimited last set for the sake of tradition in some shape or form. This would be for the women's singles or some doubles matches - men's, women's or mixed. Or - I prefer this - limits placed only from the quarter finals of the men's singles and all else onwards. Retention of no limit at earlier stages should not place stresses on schedulers or affect the outcomes of finals.

[Richard Tarleton]

There are too many variables in tennis to make height a deciding factor. It's Darwinism - just as some players are taller, so others are better returners, or movers round the court - which the beanpoles generally aren't. But I think a tie break in the fifth has to come - all the players seem to think so. As Tim Henman said, 12-12 is a 6th set. 26-24 is...3-4 more sets. And as John McEnroe said, the longer the last set goes on, the harder it becomes to break (QED). We've seen enough by then - penalty shoot-out! And it only seems to be the one-trick ponies (the tall guys) who end up in this situation - it's impossible to break their serves (when there are two of them) but they never win championships.

I'm delighted to see a Djokovic win - after the Hispanics I support the Balkan countries, after some outstanding trips to the region

[vinteuil]

I'm delighted to see a Djokovic win - after the Hispanics I support the Balkan countries, after some outstanding trips to the region

.

... pity the Frenchies seem to be getting more goals in the soccer - otherwise we could be having a proper Serbo-Croatian celebration...


.

[Richard Tarleton]

.

... pity the Frenchies seem to be getting more goals in the soccer - otherwise we could be having a proper Serbo-Croatian celebration...


.

Indeed .

[alywin]

Whatever, it will change, not least because of the one sidedness of this final unless there is a dramatic change there. I think then we should at least be looking at retaining the unlimited last set for the sake of tradition in some shape or form. This would be for the women's singles or some doubles matches - men's, women's or mixed. Or - I prefer this - limits placed only from the quarter finals of the men's singles and all else onwards. Retention of no limit at earlier stages should not place stresses on schedulers or affect the outcomes of finals.

There are too many variables in tennis to make height a deciding factor. It's Darwinism - just as some players are taller, so others are better returners, or movers round the court - which the beanpoles generally aren't. But I think a tie break in the fifth has to come - all the players seem to think so. As Tim Henman said, 12-12 is a 6th set. 26-24 is...3-4 more sets. And as John McEnroe said, the longer the last set goes on, the harder it becomes to break (QED). We've seen enough by then - penalty shoot-out! And it only seems to be the one-trick ponies (the tall guys) who end up in this situation - it's impossible to break their serves (when there are two of them) but they never win championships.

Never realised there was a tennis thread here before (and I'm guessing everyone forgot it this year) until I was searching for something completely different! It'd be interesting to see how effective/appropriate you thought the change this year was, given what happened in the men's final.