Wimbledon

[mangerton]

The scoring of tennis seems simple to me compared with cricket and its' silly mid this and the other and everyone standing about doing nothing.

Yes, I must agree. The problem with tennis is, a match could go on for ever - literally. Why don't they play like football or rugby - 40 or 45 minutes each half?

And Anna, I quite agree about the roof. They put a roof on the court so they can play until 11 pm, and doubtless they'll sell lots more exorbitant food and drink.

But they don't put the roof on when it looks like rain, so that when the rain comes, they stop the match, and the sales of exorbitant food and drink.... I was going to say go through the roof, but you know what I mean. They're laughing all the way to the bank.

[mangerton]

BTW, the hilarious Sue Barker gaffe is already all over the internet and the most extraordinary (and disturbing) thing is that no one at the BBC seems to have even noticed ... or maybe not so extraordinary for Scottish viewers.

For those who didn't witness it ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UemPmatbxl0

Thanks, scotty. No surprise to me. She did well to get "Alex".

[Lateralthinking1]

FUTURE BRITISH WINNER OF AN OLYMPICS GOLD MEDAL!

[scottycelt]

I've never seen Murray play so well,especially at the beginning of the match. He didn't weaken but Federer on a good day is almost unbeatable.

Murray will be back.

That says it all, Sal!

Nice to see a wholly unprejudiced and objective view of things here ...

[Alison]

We didnt hear the spendidly old fashioned 1940s theme music at the end of broadcasts this year.

I have it on CD somewhere.

The meaningful lyrics pop song to wrap up programmes is a most unwelcome development !

[Mary Chambers]

I must say I think it's a bit mean to force someone who's just lost a Wimbledon final to make a speech live on air. It's not necessary for either the winner or the loser..

[Lateralthinking1]

Anna and mangerton - The reason why they don't always put the roof on when the weather turns is that it is supposed to be an outdoor tournament. If the forecast is for a passing shower, the covers go on. If it is for a long downpour, it's the roof.

Alison - I think they still have the excellent original theme music. The pop songs with visual clips - montages? - though have been around as an additional feature for many years. Originally when the latter were introduced, they were things of real artistic beauty. ITV etc tried to do the same with other sports. Their imitations were always poor.

The BBC have lost their subtle people. The current lot match sound and visual images with all the finesse of a steamroller. It also doesn't help to have such unmusical content around. At least 'Let It Be' was an improvement in that department.

But, love 'em or loathe 'em, it was the anthem like qualities of Oasis and, dare I say it, early Coldplay which really contributed to that exercise, if not much else. Classical music in the right hands also works a treat.

[Lateralthinking1]

I must say I think it's a bit mean to force someone who's just lost a Wimbledon final to make a speech live on air. It's not necessary for either the winner or the loser..

Difficult point, I think, Mary. When they are tearful, it generally works in their favour. That was the case with Andy today when we got to see a different side to his character. The moment from history that particularly stands out in my mind was the exchange between Jana Novotna and the now sadly absent Duchess of Kent. That though was not during an interview.

The interview this year that seemed absolutely outrageous was the one involving Nalbandian at Queens Club. The match had been prematurely ended. As the official was hobbling around just ahead of several stitches, I was expecting the player to be arrested. Instead, the microphones arrived and he was asked for his thoughts as if everything were quite normal.

[Extended Play]

I must say I think it's a bit mean to force someone who's just lost a Wimbledon final to make a speech live on air. It's not necessary for either the winner or the loser..

I agree wholeheartedly Mary, and I think it's something the broadcasters ought to reconsider, but I fear it has become the established practice. I can only assume that it's written into the players' contracts with Wimbledon -- or the BBC's contract with Wimbledon -- or Sue Barker's contract with the BBC. I'm sure everyone would have understood if Murray had politely declined the invitation to be "interviewed" immediately after the match; all credit to him for struggling to regain his composure in the most difficult of circumstances, in order to congratulate his opponent and thank his family and supporters. Congratulations to Federer. Both men displayed great sportsmanship.

[Lateralthinking1]

all credit to him for struggling to regain his composure in the most difficult of circumstances, in order to congratulate his opponent and thank his family and supporters.......Both men displayed great sportsmanship.

I agree. Here's the short story. I had been supporting Murray in all of his matches, mainly because I wanted to see that 1936 reference turned into an irrelevance. At the same time, I was for Federer. I know that Pete Sampras was not a better player at Wimbledon and hoped history could show that Fed had equalled his record. The only time before the semis that I waivered on Murray was during his match against Ferrer. The latter played brilliantly and there are categories I favour in tennis - eg short - it is incredible that someone of 5'9 should be number 5 in the world. Then Federer got to the final. I still supported Murray against Tsonga but it was turning into a dilemma. Rightly or wrongly, certain issues had arisen - his character, that question of whether he was Scottish or British, and a feeling that even if he were to be British, is Britain these days really worth the dedication?

So at that point I was more for Federer but then I read about Murray's background in more detail. There were several aspects which won me over more, as had one or two of his interviews, if not all. As we waited for the final, it was then fairly even stephens but, if anything, I was slightly more for Murray. Not that there weren't challenges. Challenges like the BBC hedging its bets in the lead-up by both emphasising British tennis history and the history of Scottish sport. Challenges like No 10 replacing the Union Jack with the saltyre, Alex Salmond turning up, and that thing Andy had said about not being bothered about his parents. If the Scottish were ready to milk the occasion, the British were on balance even worse. Royalty was in attendance, obviously, but was there really a need for both Cameron and Clegg? Dave made sure he was interviewed about his tremendous tennis interests, hoping to bask in the glory. Then he was filmed walking in late when the roof was on like a naughty school child. How obnoxious.

There were also a few little local difficulties. I had been invited in to watch the programme by my parents. When I arrived, it was clear that (a) neither was particularly interested and (b) they had taken a real dislike to Murray. Such was the atmosphere around the latter that when it came to the weather break, I made my excuses and left. Two sets later, I was pleased for Rog who at times lived up to that tag of 'genius' although earlier on he had seemed by his standards quite ordinary. I was also sad for Andy who had certainly played good tennis. He came across exceedingly well in the interview and I hope he achieves in the future. But somewhere in the course of these events, the 1936 reference no longer seemed important. It was a different Britain then and to my mind a far better Britain where leadership rarely meant exploitation. Supporting a British player, whether Scottish or not, now comes with a myriad of agendas. It is increasingly difficult to subscribe to any of them. And that is what I call a disappointment!

[Nick Armstrong]

I must say I think it's a bit mean to force someone who's just lost a Wimbledon final to make a speech live on air. It's not necessary for either the winner or the loser..

I also agree, Mary - it seems like cruel and unusual punishment, especially when someone who has given their all is expected to speak to millions in a language which is foreign to them

But I fear it's here to stay - and is a growing tendency: for the first time ever (I'm reasonably confident in saying that), the three top drivers in today's British Grand Prix had microphones pushed under their noses on the podium (by Jackie Stewart) and were expected to talk to the world.

[Lateralthinking1]

CHAMPIONS!



Raymond and Bryan Make it 7 Out of 8 Trophies for 30-Somethings

[Lateralthinking1]

What? Did I miss one? Hats off to Roger Federer and all you lucky people!

CHAMPION!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I must say I think it's a bit mean to force someone who's just lost a Wimbledon final to make a speech live on air. It's not necessary for either the winner or the loser..

I agree too. It's an appalling practice. I remember David Vine interviewing Steve Davis when he had just lost the World Snooker Championship to Dennis Taylor. He was understandably quiet, but our plebian tabloid press shoute form the rooftops about his "rudeness". These are the same idiot journalists whose only interview question us "How do you feel?" after some personal tragedy has struck the poor interviewee. When Bob Willis gave the interviewer what he deserved, the press didn't like it one bit. I rather admire Princess Anne for her contemptious view of the press.

I put many journalists in the same category as bankers, politicians and mobility-scooter drivers.

[Ferretfancy]

Working on items for Current Affairs department can be quite an eye opener when it comes to observing interviewing techniques. Some of the methods used induced disgust. I remember an item about a WWI anniversary in which an elderly lady was talking about the loss of her fiancee all those years earlier. " What did it feel like when you got the telegram?" she was asked. Then the interviewer waited in silence with the camera in close up. When she broke down, the other production staff said" Isn't she good?"

Harold Williamson always used this method to get an emotional response out of his subjects, and I remember David Dimbleby telling us that it was unforgivable. He made the point that an interviewer should always be prepared with a supplementary question, and never leave the subject twisting on a hook.

I must say that I've never found Andy Murray a very appealing personality, but I was very sorry to see him lose after the incredibly over the top advance hopes for his success, but now I find myself admiring his fortitude. It was splendid tennis wasn't it?