Anyone forTennis.......Wimbledon 2013

[mangerton]

I use the subtitles and wish Ihad noted some ofthe ludicrous things they print, usually corrected quickly but quite garbled rubbish at first. Arethey done by Martians?

I think by computers, saly, but the effect is much the same. They are rather good though, aren't they? I saw a tennis subtitle last week which said "places bended". It took me a minute or two to work that one out.

[amateur51]

I think by computers, saly, but the effect is much the same. They are rather good though, aren't they? I saw a tennis subtitle last week which said "places bended". It took me a minute or two to work that one out.

Oh I wonder if it's Voice Recognition Software - that can come up with some choice blunders if it's not 'trained' properly to an individual's voice.

[amateur51]

I really can't be bothered.

No surprise there then

[mangerton]

Oh I wonder if it's Voice Recognition Software - that can come up with some choice blunders if it's not 'trained' properly to an individual's voice.

Yes, I think that's what it is. The latest version of a well known browser on my ipad has it, and it actually works quite well.

[Flosshilde]

Explain to me how the OP was ironic, Mr Pee ... no conferring, no recourse to legal aid

Puzzled me, too. It might have been the intention to be ironic, but there was nothing in the post to indicate that.

But, as Mr Pee said, back to the tennis. Any up-and-coming young star of the male persuasion worth noticing, aesthetically speaking ?

[Nick Armstrong]

the original post was ironic

Huh??

[Flosshilde]

If you need the help of a smiley to realise that the original post was ironic, then you MUST be American.

Isn't the original post this -

Sharapova through.

Murray just about to play Benjamin Becker.

Irony?

[Padraig]

I think the answer lies in the exchange between #77 and #78. I cannot believe that #77 could be called a sexist message, except ironically. That is the message which prompted the query by amateur. Have I got it wrong, Flosshilde?

[Flosshilde]

I've no idea - you'd have to ask Mary & Sir Velo. I don't know enough about Sir Velo's attitudes to feminism & sexism to be able to tell that his one-word post was intended ironically. If it had been Scottycelt I would have been absolutely certain

[mercia]

"hawkeye" or whatever its called has certainly put paid to any arguing with the referee hasn't it - you just don't get any these days - they often used to be the turning points in matches if a player felt hard-done-by by a decision

[Padraig]

I've no idea - you'd have to ask Mary & Sir Velo. I don't know enough about Sir Velo's attitudes to feminism & sexism to be able to tell that his one-word post was intended ironically. If it had been Scottycelt I would have been absolutely certain

Only trying to help, Flosshilde. I just thought you picked the wrong message to quote.
Where does scotty fit in to the discussion?

[Sir Velo]

OK, back on topic. (That's enough smileys: - Ed)

This year is the first time that my work arrangements have enabled me to watch Wimbledon on television in about 20 years. To say it is not as good as I remember it is an understatement along the lines of HS2 is a controversial project.

Firstly: the BBC seems to have made it a requirement that only voyeurs can be employed as cameramen. I can only assume that is the case given the intrusive, close ups of either the prettiest girl, or the person with the strangest facial make up, with which we are inflicted after every point (this can be downright unpleasant when watched on HD on a large screen). Whatever happened to wide angle camera shots of the crowd at a reasonable distance? Moreover, the break between points used to be taken up with replays and analysis of the point just played. This seems to have been ditched in favour of voyeuristic celeb watching with which we are all apparently obsessed.

Secondly, the commentators are not as good. McEnroe is an exception but he talks too much and, unforgivably, interrupts others (especially the women, despite his claims that his four daughters make him a guru on the subject of feminine psychology). The others feel they need to pep up their commentary with references to celebs and other sporting events (Lions, Ashes, F1) at every opportunity. Stick to the tennis guys!

Worse, even, is the post match interview. The one with Laura Robson hit a new low for banality yesterday. Instead of asking her how she managed to claw her way back into the match, the pitiable interviewer obviously thought that the only way to interact with a teenager was to ask her whether she had had any more tweets from pop stars. To her credit, Robson's response showed embarrassment and bemusement at the question.

Finally, and beyond belief is the travesty of the one hour highlight programme. Except that in the one hour you get about 25 minutes of actual tennis. The rest of the time is made up of fatuous analysis and features on the most fanciable player in the tournament, or bar games between Pat Cash and Tracy Austin as the BBC's riposte to the "Battle of the Sexes" between Murray and S Williams. Obviously, the BBC has decided that we can't be watching the programme for the tennis alone so must be provided with our fix of triviality.

Jeez, I give up!

[amateur51]

OObviously, the BBC has decided that we can't be watching the programme for the tennis alone so must be provided with our fix of triviality.

Jeez, I give up!

Something's afoot - this is the second time this morning I've read one of your posts and thoroughly agreed with it, Sir Velo

[Richard Tarleton]

This year is the first time that my work arrangements have enabled me to watch Wimbledon on television in about 20 years. To say it is not as good as I remember it is an understatement along the lines of HS2 is a controversial project.

Up to a point, Sir V - I'm with you on post-match interviews and celebs, and don't watch the highlight programme....but I find the standard of commentary pretty high (I can't remember who was commentating in the early '90s, but I go back to Dan "Oh I say" Maskell in the 1960s). And they are constantly doing replays and analysis between points, from multiple camera angles, together with graphics on which parts of the court players are targeting, instant statistics on things like aces, unforced errors....I particularly enjoy the McEnroe-Becker double acts, with the latter's brief but drily witty comments. I also think the standard of female commentary has risen immeasurably - remember Virginia Wade and Ann Jones? I thought Sam Smith did a good job during the Robson match yesterday. The game has become much more technical (in every sense - training, equipment, tactics, you name it) and with it the in-depth knowledge of the commentators. The commentators of yesteryear couldn't hack it in today's game.

Oh, and whilst in every way regrettable, I think the pop star question was a reference to an earlier conversation about Robson's Twitter habits. I thought she dealt with it admirably.

[salymap]

The top seeds are still losing.

Serena out, Robson out, Murray fighting to save the first set.

Am I the only one watching ?