TOPIC:

I stayed up last night (or this morning to be more accurate) to watch the game between Anderson and Ishner and while it was compelling tennis, more so for the mental resiliance of both players rather than the standard of the game, it had me thinking that maybe they should introduce a tie breaker in the deciding set as well to put a limit on a game like this between two players with completely unplayable serves. 7 years ago Ishner won the longest match in Wimbledon history by winning the fifth set 70-68, so you would have thought that this would have served as a warning to the organisers that this could happen in a crucial game such as a semi final. What has happened now is that the whole scheduling has been thrown out as the players in the other semi final will have to complete the game today.
Unfortunately it is now very likely that the mens final will be a damp squib because Anderson would have to have superhuman qualities to be able to recover from that enough to be able to compete with Nadal or Djocovich on Sunday. If they had a tie breaker in the 5th the game would have been over in around 4 and a half hours rather than 6 and a half, those extra 2 hours makes a hell of a difference to two tired players.

I think it is what is still unique about the game, fatigue is a part of sport and plays a factor in results and should from my perspective continue to do so. The game has been modelled to suit the power servers enough already so would prefer it to stay as is. If Anderson can't back up, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all to him and his performance, then that's part of the sport and the whole of tournament.
Wish there wasn't so many on the bench and so many interchanges in our sport because less fatigue hasn't done much for the spectacle and standard of AFL today.

mikeh wrote: I stayed up last night (or this morning to be more accurate) to watch the game between Anderson and Ishner and while it was compelling tennis, more so for the mental resiliance of both players rather than the standard of the game, it had me thinking that maybe they should introduce a tie breaker in the deciding set as well to put a limit on a game like this between two players with completely unplayable serves. 7 years ago Ishner won the longest match in Wimbledon history by winning the fifth set 70-68, so you would have thought that this would have served as a warning to the organisers that this could happen in a crucial game such as a semi final. What has happened now is that the whole scheduling has been thrown out as the players in the other semi final will have to complete the game today.
Unfortunately it is now very likely that the mens final will be a damp squib because Anderson would have to have superhuman qualities to be able to recover from that enough to be able to compete with Nadal or Djocovich on Sunday. If they had a tie breaker in the 5th the game would have been over in around 4 and a half hours rather than 6 and a half, those extra 2 hours makes a hell of a difference to two tired players.

mikeh there is only one grand slam that doesn't play an advantage set if the 5th and that is the one where the citizen's elected Trump. I thought that the score in the other semi was 2 sets to 1. Part of tennis is not just a physical battle but a metal one as well.

Given it was played on a grass court I also don't understand how you can suggest that Anderson should be physically tired. There maybe a certain amount of mental tiredness that would be easily outweighed by the fact he is in the final of the biggest tournament in tennis.

The other point I would make is that very often a player has been forced to play on consecutive days due to rain. I would also point out that the two participants of the other semi are advantaged by playing a number of matches where the court has a roof and so they are able to continue their matches when other players are forced to stop.

ooollllrrrrrry2 wrote: I think it is what is still unique about the game, fatigue is a part of sport and plays a factor in results and should from my perspective continue to do so. The game has been modelled to suit the power servers enough already so would prefer it to stay as is. If Anderson can't back up, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all to him and his performance, then that's part of the sport and the whole of tournament.
Wish there wasn't so many on the bench and so many interchanges in our sport because less fatigue hasn't done much for the spectacle and standard of AFL today.

ool I agree with most of what you have said but there have been changes to both the courts and balls to lessen the impact of the big servers' impact on grass. The grass courts at Wimbledon play far more like a hard court than a traditional grass court.

swan42 wrote:

ooollllrrrrrry2 wrote: I think it is what is still unique about the game, fatigue is a part of sport and plays a factor in results and should from my perspective continue to do so. The game has been modelled to suit the power servers enough already so would prefer it to stay as is. If Anderson can't back up, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all to him and his performance, then that's part of the sport and the whole of tournament.
Wish there wasn't so many on the bench and so many interchanges in our sport because less fatigue hasn't done much for the spectacle and standard of AFL today.

ool I agree with most of what you have said but there have been changes to both the courts and balls to lessen the impact of the big servers' impact on grass. The grass courts at Wimbledon play far more like a hard court than a traditional grass court.

Then why the comment regarding unplayable serves?

ooollllrrrrrry2 wrote:

swan42 wrote:

ooollllrrrrrry2 wrote: I think it is what is still unique about the game, fatigue is a part of sport and plays a factor in results and should from my perspective continue to do so. The game has been modelled to suit the power servers enough already so would prefer it to stay as is. If Anderson can't back up, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all to him and his performance, then that's part of the sport and the whole of tournament.
Wish there wasn't so many on the bench and so many interchanges in our sport because less fatigue hasn't done much for the spectacle and standard of AFL today.

ool I agree with most of what you have said but there have been changes to both the courts and balls to lessen the impact of the big servers' impact on grass. The grass courts at Wimbledon play far more like a hard court than a traditional grass court.

Then why the comment regarding unplayable serves?

Who made that comment? There have been big servers for a long time. Very few of them have dominated. Go back to Philippoussis, Roscoe Tanner etc. Sure the racquet technology has made a huge difference; but that apples equally to the ground strokes. But the Wimbledon grass of today bounces a lot higher than it use to; hence guys like Nadal and other claycourters are able to adapt more easily than in other eras (and for freezin's benefit when Borg was winning Wimbledon titles Australia a traditional grass court nation was at a low ebb). The balls have been adapted to lessen the dominance of the big servers.

Amazing to think over 4 sets these boys played 49 games....yet the fifth set needed 50 games....this match didn't deserve a loser.....not sure how Anderson is going to come back after two classic drawn out 5 set marathons on the bounce....Djokovic or Nadal for me, even if their game goes to 5 sets.....

Freezin wrote: Amazing to think over 4 sets these boys played 49 games....yet the fifth set needed 50 games....this match didn't deserve a loser.....not sure how Anderson is going to come back after two classic drawn out 5 set marathons on the bounce....Djokovic or Nadal for me, even if their game goes to 5 sets.....

They are hardly drawn out matches on a grass court when two big servers are playing.

Yeah true 42 that 3 hr 5th set between Isner and Anderson was short and sweet.....for all concerned......

One wonders how uninformed some people are when they make comments about the relative energy expended between two big servers and two predominantly baseliners. Over 100 aces were served in the former case compared with 31 aces for the latter.

Based on 100 aces served you could another 100 points or so where the serve was unplayable. What percentage of points in the match of Isner vs Anderson would have been fewer than 5 strokes per rally compared to a far greater percentage for the Nadal Djokovic match.

How people like Caroline Wilson and Kellie Underwood think that it would be fair and equitable to have the continuation of the second semi-final after the Women's final is beyond comprehension.