Wimbledon 2018

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

I'm not sure how that would work in terms of ticketing and audiences. Most people have purchased tickets for the Saturday on the understanding they are going to watch the Women's final. Having Nadal V Djokovic to finish beforehand was a bonus for them.

I do think the match should finish on the court it started on though, roof or nae roof.

If I was involved I would have flirted with pitching the idea of letting things run to Monday. Mental eh... but, you would still fill the 15,000 no problem and could organise the scheduling to conveniently eradicate the world cup final clash :thumbsup:.. and probably milk some more money out of the occasion while you're at it.

---

I don't see why a different court would have mattered. It was a different day anyway, and I think there is a precedent for moving matches in the past, although I may be making that up.

Last word from me on this, promise....

On Friday when it became apparent that Nadal and Djokovic were going to run into Saturday, I was coming back home from being out with my Mum (I know, I know) and I turned to her and said "what are they going to do about tomorrow?" I genuinely felt it left the organisers with a huge headache, but not once did it occur to me that they might disrupt the women's final. I thought that a 2pm start was a given there, and they would have to get creative to reschedule the men's match. When I realised what they'd done I was honestly shocked, as that eventuality hadn't crossed my mind. So I'm not just constructing something to be outraged by, I'm just very very surprised that this was the decision they came to.

...And I'm done. (Until I feel the need to reply again!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

is there a chance she may have been referring to them playing in the longer final (i.e. 5 sets)?

---

Well there you go, another thing that hadn't occurred to me. I suppose it could have been that, yes.

Quote:

---

If it wasn't and sees the men's final as the biggest one... she shares the opinion of many, and it's not disappointing if she is being honest.

---

I still find it disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greentinted

Is it just me or, the odd match notwithstanding (Nadal v Del Potro) was this year’s Wimbledon quite flat (Men’s and Women's)?
While not being an authority or über fan I enjoy watching tennis, particularly the majors, but this year’s tournament really didn’t grip me at all. Maybe am just getting auld and dull(er).
Och well, roll on The US Open...

---

It was always going to be a bit flat for British fans without Andy Murray. I'm normally an avid watcher but without Andy I lost interest this year. Williams and Djokovic getting to their respective finals probably didn't help either given that neither have ever been popular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McS****y

I don't see why a different court would have mattered. It was a different day anyway, and I think there is a precedent for moving matches in the past, although I may be making that up.

Last word from me on this, promise....

On Friday when it became apparent that Nadal and Djokovic were going to run into Saturday, I was coming back home from being out with my Mum (I know, I know) and I turned to her and said "what are they going to do about tomorrow?" I genuinely felt it left the organisers with a huge headache, but not once did it occur to me that they might disrupt the women's final. I thought that a 2pm start was a given there, and they would have to get creative to reschedule the men's match. When I realised what they'd done I was honestly shocked, as that eventuality hadn't crossed my mind. So I'm not just constructing something to be outraged by, I'm just very very surprised that this was the decision they came to.

...And I'm done. (Until I feel the need to reply again!)

---

I actually agree that efforts should have been made to keep the women's final as it was, by the way :aok: I guess 2pm was an awkward time given how long the men's semi could theoretically have gone on afterwards (as evidenced in the other semi) with the final to follow the very next day (at a traditional 2pm!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

It was always going to be a bit flat for British fans without Andy Murray. I'm normally an avid watcher but without Andy I lost interest this year. Williams and Djokovic getting to their respective finals probably didn't help either given that neither have ever been popular.

---

I was quite surprised by what seemed to be a large Serena support this year. Presumably in no small part to her comeback story and 'doing it for mothers' connotations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

I actually agree that efforts should have been made to keep the women's final as it was, by the way :aok: I guess 2pm was an awkward time given how long the men's semi could theoretically have gone on afterwards (as evidenced in the other semi) with the final to follow the very next day (at a traditional 2pm!)

---

:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

I was quite surprised by what seemed to be a large Serena support this year. Presumably in no small part to her comeback story and 'doing it for mothers' connotations?

---

I'm surprised too if that was the case, although I didn't actually see any of the women's singles. It's usually polite applause rather than genuine support for her, partly I think because on her day she simply blows her opponents off the court through sheer power which doesn't make for much of a spectacle. I was glad to see Kerber beat her from that point of view. As for the 'doing it for the mothers' angle, I thought that got a bit overblown. Fine achievement to get yourself fit and able to compete at the top level again so soon, but it's not as if she's the first female sportswoman to return to action after having kids. In tennis alone I remember Clijsters came back to win more slams with children than without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

I'm surprised too if that was the case, although I didn't actually see any of the women's singles. It's usually polite applause rather than genuine support for her, partly I think because on her day she simply blows her opponents off the court through sheer power which doesn't make for much of a spectacle. I was glad to see Kerber beat her from that point of view. As for the 'doing it for the mothers' angle, I thought that got a bit overblown. Fine achievement to get yourself fit and able to compete at the top level again so soon, but it's not as if she's the first female sportswoman to return to action after having kids. In tennis alone I remember Clijsters came back to win more slams with children than without.

---

I don't disagree.

Not a huge fan of Williams but don't hate her either. There was a time I really couldn't stick her - after her behaviour against Sam Stosur, possibly in US open final (that could be wrong though).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeRussell

I probably didn't get to see as much as I would normally (similar to the world cup) largely down to a busy last month or so. (I probably watched as much at work as I did in my spare time!!).

However I enjoyed what I did see as much as any other tournament. The Nadal v Djokovic semi was brilliant, and was really pleased for Kerber (albeit it wasn't the most competitive of finals for either the men or women).

Perhaps you're an Andy Murray fan and that took the shine off it compared to the last few years?

---

Don't get me wrong, I like AM a lot and of course, favour him but I've followed tennis since I was a lad - first Wimbledon memory is Virginia Wade in 77 - and just toiled to fully engage this time round. Found myself getting annoyed with the BBC coverage (Inverdale and Castle doing my nut in more than usual) and other such pedantic nonsense which clearly reflected my wee disconnect.
As I say, looking forward to the US Open and aye, can't disagree with your comments re Kerber. Ostapenko was another wee ray of light through the (IMO) mediocrity.:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greentinted

Don't get me wrong, I like AM a lot and of course, favour him but I've followed tennis since I was a lad - first Wimbledon memory is Virginia Wade in 77 - and just toiled to fully engage this time round. Found myself getting annoyed with the BBC coverage (Inverdale and Castle doing my nut in more than usual) and other such pedantic nonsense which clearly reflected my wee disconnect.
As I say, looking forward to the US Open and aye, can't disagree with your comments re Kerber. Ostapenko was another wee ray of light through the (IMO) mediocrity.:aok:

---

Ahhh... I can fully understand and empathise with your issue now :wink: (Did you notice how many times the word "duchess" or "duchesses" was used in commentary during play this weekend??!! :greengrin)

Yep - roll on the US.

Agree - a lot to like in the women's game just now, and plenty of players I can take to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McS****y

If you read up a few posts, I had suggested before they played that they may not 'bare all' for various reasons - surely you can see why that might be the case. Kerber's response was particularly disappointing for me, referring to the men's final as the 'biggest final' does not set her up as an ideal role model for young girls/women!

You're right though, when we're all building straw men (either around players being economical with the truth, or citing non-existent rules) then there can never be any certainty. We are, however, all allowed opinions. But seeing as mine is being dismissed as "getting my knickers in a twist", I'll retire back under rock I crawled out from :wink:

Have a nice day!

---

Its not a non-existent rule. If a match begins under the roof, it’s to continue under the roof in order to maintain as consistent a set of conditions as possible. The opposite isn’t true (match begins without roof), because a change (roof being closed) only happens to keep play going rather than a having a rain break.

Because this match had to stop on Friday evening (outwith the control of Wimbledon), the players are given the option of opening the roof for the conclusion of the match. This requires the agreement of both players, so they both must agree to changing the conditions. Djokovic refused to have the roof opened, which meant the match had to be played on centre court, as the only court with a roof.

As I said earlier on the thread, I understand your point, I think Wimbledon were put in a pretty impossible position by the existing rules, and the point in the tournament that it happened. If this had happened a week earlier, a few other matches, possibly men’s or women’s, would have been shuffled around to accommodate a match needing to continue on cerntre court. In fact, I’m not convinced they would have even started that later match (the 2nd semi) at all, if it had been earlier in the tournament, but for the hope that one of Djokovic or Nadal would take a very quick victory and negate any need to disrupt the following days proceedings at all.

i do think calling out sexism is a bit far though, had the normal run of things been the opposite way around (men’s final Saturday, women’s Sunday),I think they would have done exactly the same, had the women’s semi complete on centre court with the roof closed before the men’s final. For the whole tournament (and I expect for most others), players have to wait until earlier matches complete on their court before they can play their match, such as Nadal and Djokovic had to on Friday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McS****y

If you want to take this thread as an indication of the general population, I make it about 80-20 in your favour. I would consider 20% to be a small but significant minority!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

---

What is your opinion on the fact that the male players will potentially have to play 40% more tennis to get the same prize money as the women? Is that fair?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

It was always going to be a bit flat for British fans without Andy Murray. I'm normally an avid watcher but without Andy I lost interest this year. Williams and Djokovic getting to their respective finals probably didn't help either given that neither have ever been popular.

---

It was indeed a bit empty without Andy. He's not got the best voice for commentating either! I just hope that he can get back to his best but I'm not optimistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beensaidbefore

What is your opinion on the fact that the male players will potentially have to play 40% more tennis to get the same prize money as the women? Is that fair?

---

No, it's not. It's not fair on the men or the women.

Again, you can take it from the practical "men play 40% more tennis" point of view = unfair on the men. I'd find that hard to disagree with.

But you can also take it from a "big message" point of view, which suggests that women aren't as strong as men, or certainly don't have enough stamina to last as long, therefore devaluing them further. In fact, women (many of them high profile, including Serena) have repeatedly offered to go up to 5 sets in Grand Slams, but have been denied by the tournament organisers.

The fact of the matter is that the 5 set thing was devised a long long time ago, and has, in my opinion, outlived its usefulness. In the modern era, there have been more and more marathon matches, so it's no wonder the likes of Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro and even Federer have been out for extended periods. The stress on their bodies to play for 4-5 hours at a time at that level must be ridiculous. My preference would be to see men's matches reduced to 3 sets in all competitions. They could even keep their 'no tie break in the last set' rule without causing too much hassle, as even the longest matches would still run a good 90 minutes - 2 hours shorter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McD

i do think calling out sexism is a bit far though, had the normal run of things been the opposite way around (men’s final Saturday, women’s Sunday),I think they would have done exactly the same, had the women’s semi complete on centre court with the roof closed before the men’s final. For the whole tournament (and I expect for most others), players have to wait until earlier matches complete on their court before they can play their match, such as Nadal and Djokovic had to on Friday.

---

I take your point, and maybe calling out sexism was over the top. I'll have to disagree on whether they would have disrupted the men's final, but I guess we'll never know. So I can stay "outraged from Musselburgh" :greengrin and you can continue with your damned reasonable posts!

Don't let your daughter see Andrew Castle's column in today's Metro, she'll be raging! ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

Don't let your daughter see Andrew Castle's column in today's Metro, she'll be raging! ;-)

---

It's alright, she's not allowed to read any newspapers smaller than 29" x 23".

Aye, I always thought broad sheets were papers for females.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

Aye, I always thought broad sheets were papers for females.

---

...and not even a hint of a sarcastic smiley! :greengrin

What was the odious Mr Castle saying anyway? I always considered him slightly above Inverdale in the 'orrible stakes, but maybe I should revise my opinion!

Aye, I did miss out a smiley of some sort. It'll be on the website if you can be arsed checking.

If it's this one, I don't think it really says anything that a poster on her hasn't offered as an argument already, which I think is probably Hutchy's point :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McS****y

I take your point, and maybe calling out sexism was over the top. I'll have to disagree on whether they would have disrupted the men's final, but I guess we'll never know. So I can stay "outraged from Musselburgh" :greengrin and you can continue with your damned reasonable posts!

---

:thumbsup: I do think you’ve argued your point very well, and calmly, even if we don’t quite agree mate ��