Tennis Thread

[Spunkygal]

38 minutes ago, theatremouse said:

Last week Wimbledon was only on ESPN and they rotated through matches so you couldn't really watch one whole. This week ESPN=Centre Court. ESPN2=Court 1.

I believe technically he could've called a let, but it would be very unusual for him to do so since she played the point. And he'd JUST told people to stop calling out too. Bad audience.

Actually, if you have DirecTV and have the premium package (worth the $$$), you had five Wimbledon channels and could watch the entirety of all the singles matches last week. They do this with all the majors. Sadly, that goes away for the second week and now we are at ESPN's mercy. I have been so tempted to cut the ties with DirecTV but I live for the extra coverage during the first week of majors. Of course my non tennis-loving friends think I'm crazy.

[theatremouse]

You can also use ESPN3/watchESPN app to watch every match (both weeks), as long as your TV provider has ESPN in general. I think last year Tennis Channel also had an extra package you could buy to get all courts the whole tournament through their app? I might be remembering it wrong and I don't recall hearing about it this year. But from a strictly generic cable standard ESPN channels standpoint, this week they have split the two show courts between ESPN and ESPN2, so you can pretty easily determine which channel you want to watch to find a particular match based on what court it's on.

[roseha]

Yes, it's all very confusing though.  It appears that certain matches are given to Tennis Channel Plus - I purchased it for $72 a year one weekend when they were having a 20 percent off sale - but I looked at it during Wimbledon and could only find French Open matches.  I don't think they are allowed to show Wimbledon, you have to go to Watch ESPN.  I think.  Or something.  The other bad thing is that the WTA made some marketing decision that has taken their tournaments off Tennis Channel. And ESPN?  Actually I don't know, but it used to be that Tennis Channel would repeat every major after ESPN showed it live, and while they are doing that for Wimbledon I'm not at all clear what the arrangement is the rest of the year.   I wonder if tennis will ever get itself out of this state of broadcasting flux - I feel like this has been going on for as long as I've been watching, and no wonder the casual fans get confused.

Speaking of Tennis Channel, Martina is my favorite commentator.  There are other good ones, but she is the best I think about explaining what is going on in a match and why the players are doing what they are doing (for better or worse).  I like Jon Wertheim's commentary a lot too.

[blackwing]

2 hours ago, dcalley said:

Yikes, it's in black and white that crowd noise and out calls from spectators are not a hindrance. I do think the umpire should have some discretion, though I understand why the rules are for it to be as cut-and-dried as possible. It's easier that way. But hundreds of people gasping at a shot and one woman screaming out during play are not the same.

Thanks for sharing that excerpt from the rules, I didn't know that.  I'm going to watch the Venus/Konta match on Thursday and see if the commentators say anything about that match point.  I understand why the rule is in place but I do think there should be discretion.  What if Venus is serving a second serve, on the losing side of a set point, and just as she is about to hit the ball, someone in the pro-British crowd screams out "murderer" and she double faults to lose the crucial first set?

We saw how rattled Venus was at the press conference last week when asked about the accident.  Even though she believes she wasn't at fault and the video supposedly proves that, she knew that last week and it still brought her to tears.   Aren't there any provisions to remedy this?  One would hope that the other player would ask the umpire to replay the point, but anyone who remembers the infamous Henin handraise against Serena knows that not all players are so gracious.

Has there been any further comment from Konta or Halep in the media?

Edited July 12, 2017 by blackwing

[Miss Chevious]

What's annoying as hell is when you're watching a match on ESPN and dvr'ing the other match on ESPN2 (because of course they're on at the same time) and the commentators blab out the score of the match you're not watching. Irks me no end!

Edited July 12, 2017 by Miss Chevious

[NUguy514]

It looked to me like the annoying shriek at the end of the Konta/Halep match was more of a hindrance to Konta since she was about to hit the ball when the shriek happened.  Also, I think Halep sort of, kind of, halfway stopped playing in the hopes that a let would be called, but I don't think there was any way that shriek could have been interpreted as having come from a line judge.  I think the chair umpire made the correct call.

It also mildly annoys me that so many were/are lauding Nadal for waiting at the end of his match yesterday when sportsmanship had nothing to do with it.  Anyone who watches Wimbledon knows the players are to exit the court together, so Nadal is not some hero for waiting.

[clb1016]

5 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

It also mildly annoys me that so many were/are lauding Nadal for waiting at the end of his match yesterday when sportsmanship had nothing to do with it.  Anyone who watches Wimbledon knows the players are to exit the court together, so Nadal is not some hero for waiting.

Actually, ESPN re-ran the last several games of the Nadal/Muller match (from 9-9 on) after the women's matches yesterday and it looked to me like Nadal was giving the side-eye to Muller for taking too long to gather his stuff together and leave the court.  Of course, Rafa may have been looking at something else and I just misinterpreted it.  And there's no denying Rafa had every right to be eager to get out of there after what must have been a devastating loss, so he gets a lot of respect from me for taking the time to do a few autographs before leaving the court.

[Mrs. P.]

So now Murray's out, along with Rafa. And I read that Djokovic may be bothered by his right shoulder. Things are looking better and better for my guy Fed.

[sacrebleu]

Holy crap--- Novak* retired! The stars may be aligning for Fed. Although-- I get a little weary of Fed's deification-- I'm gonna be pulling for an upset. 

 

* from the match I should say-- not tennis

Edited July 12, 2017 by sacrebleu

[SuburbanHangSuite]

3 minutes ago, sacrebleu said:

Holy crap--- Novak retired!

What the?!  

[truthaboutluv]

2 minutes ago, sacrebleu said:

* from the match I should say-- not tennis

lol, did anyone really think that? Yeah it certainly looks like it's all coming up roses for the old guy. However, I've seen too many times when someone's win was a given and a player just has the match of their life. 

[NUguy514]

6 hours ago, clb1016 said:

Actually, ESPN re-ran the last several games of the Nadal/Muller match (from 9-9 on) after the women's matches yesterday and it looked to me like Nadal was giving the side-eye to Muller for taking too long to gather his stuff together and leave the court.  Of course, Rafa may have been looking at something else and I just misinterpreted it.  And there's no denying Rafa had every right to be eager to get out of there after what must have been a devastating loss, so he gets a lot of respect from me for taking the time to do a few autographs before leaving the court.

Or Nadal can just be a bit patient.  Every player who loses at Wimbledon has to go through this, even with devastating losses; while the winners don't need to (and shouldn't) take all the time in the world, they're also not required to rush off the court because the losers want to leave.  If Nadal was giving side-eye, that makes me respect him less.  To be fair, though, I've never been a Nadal fan, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt about anything.

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, NUguy514 said:

Or Nadal can just be a bit patient.  Every player who loses at Wimbledon has to go through this, even with devastating losses; while the winners don't need to (and shouldn't) take all the time in the world, they're also not required to rush off the court because the losers want to leave.  If Nadal was giving side-eye, that makes me respect him less.  To be fair, though, I've never been a Nadal fan, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt about anything.

Right. Because I saw the match and saw no side-eye but then I'm a fan so I'd probably be called biased. However, I like to think I can be objective and what I saw was yes, Rafa wanting to get off the court as quickly as possible because disappointment was written all over his face. He wasn't side-eyeing anyone. He just looked exhausted and disappointed. 

[sacrebleu]

Quote

Every player who loses at Wimbledon has to go through this

I just remember feeling so badly for poor Nicholas Mahut-- they made him stick around after that marathon match with Isner for a little ceremony commemorating it. If Mahut could suck it up-- no one should ever complain about sticking around after a loss. (I didn't get a chance to see the Nadal match-- so I can't comment) 

 

But just as a general rule-- Mahut wins for sportsmanlike conduct. Because that must have suuuuuuuuucked.

Edited July 12, 2017 by sacrebleu

[NUguy514]

4 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

Right. Because I saw the match and saw no side-eye but then I'm a fan so I'd probably be called biased. However, I like to think I can be objective and what I saw was yes, Rafa wanting to get off the court as quickly as possible because disappointment was written all over his face. He wasn't side-eyeing anyone. He just looked exhausted and disappointed. 

I wasn't watching very closely, but I didn't notice a side-eye either, to be fair.  I'm just saying, if there had been one, NO BENEFITS!! :-D

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, sacrebleu said:

I just remember feeling so badly for poor Nicholas Mahut-- they made him stick around after that marathon match with Isner for a little ceremony commemorating it.

The pictures are hilarious because you could just tell he wanted to be anywhere else.

[dcalley]

7 minutes ago, sacrebleu said:

I just remember feeling so badly for poor Nicholas Mahut-- they made him stick around after that marathon match with Isner for a little ceremony commemorating it. If Mahut could suck it up-- no one should ever complain about sticking around after a loss. (I didn't get a chance to see the Nadal match-- so I can't comment) 

 

But just as a general rule-- Mahut wins for sportsmanlike conduct. Because that must have suuuuuuuuucked.

 

Just now, truthaboutluv said:

The pictures are hilarious because you could just tell he wanted to be anywhere else.

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, dcalley said:

 

lol, thanks for looking it up. Classic.

[Ohwell]

Drat.  I was pulling for Mueller but he had a good run.  

Also, congrats to Querrey! 

[BitterApple]

The Tennis Gods are smiling on Roger these days. No Murray, Djoker or Rafa going into the semis? He must've had to contain himself from doing backflips when he found out Novak retired.

I'm also happy for Querry, although it pissed me off when Murray blamed his loss on injury. Even if it's true, keep it to yourself. It makes you look like a poor sport when you discredit your opponent's win.

[selkie]

The Guardian had an often hilarious live blog of the infamous Isner-Mahut epic. Start at 3:45pm here:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/23/wimbledon-2010-tennis-live

 

and part two:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/24/wimbledon-2010-isner-mahut-live

 

Quote

The Isner-Mahut battle is a bizarre mix of the gripping and the deadly dull. It's tennis's equivalent of Waiting For Godot, in which two lowly journeymen comedians are forced to remain on an outside court until hell freezes over and the sun falls from the sky. Isner and Mahut are dying a thousand deaths out there on Court 18 and yet nobody cares, because they're watching the football. So the players stand out on their baseline and belt aces past each-other in a fifth set that has already crawled past two hours. They are now tied at 18-games apiece.

On and on they go. Soon they will sprout beards and their hair will grow down their backs, and their tennis whites will yellow and then rot off their bodies. And still they will stand out there on Court 18, belting aces and listening as the umpire calls the score. Finally, I suppose, one of them will die.

Ooh, I can see the football out of the corner of my eye. England still 1-0 up!

[MostlyC]

Wow.  Novak retired???  At the quarters? His shoulder/elbow must be really bad. I don't know if he has ever done that before. 

Go Roger!!!  I really want him to get at least one more major. Sadly, I will have to read about it because I won't be able to watch it for another 10 days or so.  

[roseha]

5 hours ago, MostlyC said:

Wow.  Novak retired???  At the quarters? His shoulder/elbow must be really bad. I don't know if he has ever done that before. 

Go Roger!!!  I really want him to get at least one more major. Sadly, I will have to read about it because I won't be able to watch it for another 10 days or so.  

I agree MostlyC, I've been so hoping Roger would win one more Wimbledon and the way he's playing I think he has a real opportunity.  Go Roger Indeed!

Selkie, thanks for that Guardian quote on Isner/Mahut.  I'm American but I love reading the Guardian coverage for tennis or entertainment, their writing is generally brilliant and often hilarious.

I just watched the Novak match, actually pretty much saw them all today live or on Tivo except the Muller - Cilic one.  I guess Novak must have been hurting but I couldn't help noticing, and the Tennis Channel announcers were noticing it too, that he just looked "quizzical" - I would have said "confused" out there.  I wonder if he just needs a break.   I do give Murray credit for at least finishing his match, however he felt.

[shok]

11 hours ago, MostlyC said:

Wow.  Novak retired???  At the quarters? His shoulder/elbow must be really bad. I don't know if he has ever done that before. 

 

Novak has never done that before? He was the king of retirements until Nishikori came along and took his title.

[SuburbanHangSuite]

I see you, Venus!  Outstanding play from start to finish.   Konta was no pushover.  Girl can trade power strokes with the best of them.

[dcalley]

Venus's smile at the end was so great. It could not have been any bigger.

[truthaboutluv]

Man the game really has become 30 is the new 20. We have Venus at almost 37 in two Grand Slam finals this year, Federer at 36 is trying to do the same, Rafa at 31 played probably the best tennis of his life during the clay season - it's pretty amazing when you consider how many people in the past retired at like 26/27. Not sure who to go with for the women's final. Nostalgia and heart says Venus because what a story that will be. And she can certainly do it, especially since Muguruza isn't always the most consistent. But Muguruza has seemed to gain in strength and confidence with every round. Her beating Kerber I think was the turning point of the tournament for her. And unlike the first time she played a Wimbledon final, she's no longer a first timer. She's since made another GS final and won it. Should be interesting. I predict a lot of really big hitting and probably a lot of unforced errors mixed in with some amazing winners. 

[mojoween]

23 hours ago, selkie said:

The Guardian had an often hilarious live blog of the infamous Isner-Mahut epic. Start at 3:45pm here:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/23/wimbledon-2010-tennis-live

 

and part two:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jun/24/wimbledon-2010-isner-mahut-live

 

That was fabulous.  The first part was definitely better than the second, I wish the same person had written both.  It all still made me giggle though!

[NUguy514]

I laughed like a loony person throughout the first of those blogs.  Amazing.

[blackwing]

Fantastic match by the Goddess on a Mountain Top!  She just seemed so calm and poised throughout the entire match.  Chris Evert said that nothing seemed to faze her.  I'm really hoping she wins.  I like Garbine, but she obviously has many more chances over the years.

Since we were talking about how the players are required to leave the court together... now I'm wondering exactly what constitutes "together".  Because it certainly didn't look to me like Konta waited.  She packed her crap up very quickly, while Venus was sitting in the chair with her eyes closed, reflective and resting and breathing hard.  Then Konta moved to leave without even a wave to her home crowd.  She stopped at the end of the court to sign a handful of autographs, and then just disappeared down the tunnel.  Venus lagged way behind.  Was this a breach of etiquette by Konta?

[theatremouse]

I noticed the same although it seemed like Konta maybe hurried over and did autographs while Venus was gathering he stuff. So by the time Konta actually left, Venus was over in autograph land. Konta did get up very quickly and was at the edge very quickly, but she was over there long enough for Venus to catch up. I think. That's what it looked like anyway. I don't know if the protocol is such that her still being not quite in the tunnel is "together" enough to count.

[BitterApple]

I think they should scrap the rule that requires the players to leave together. Let's say two players just finished a marathon match or an underdog scored an upset win over one of the big names. The player who lost just wants to get the hell out of there while the player who won probably wants to stay on court a bit and soak in the moment. It kind of screws both of them over, because the winner has to cut short his/her celebration to rush off or the loser has to stand by and stew while the winner takes his/her sweet time gathering their stuff. It would be much less awkward if they let them depart as they saw fit. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by BitterApple

[Ohwell]

Is this just a Wimbledon thing?

[BitterApple]

1 minute ago, Ohwell said:

Is this just a Wimbledon thing?

I think so. I can't recall it being a practice at any of the other Slams. Definitely not the US Open, because the winner is usually interviewed on court after the match.

Edited July 14, 2017 by BitterApple

[Ohwell]

Welp, I guess I'm not surprised.  After all, these are the same folks who had the "underwear police" come onto court to make a couple of men's doubles players change in to white underwear.

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/20007631/wimbledon-officials-make-doubles-team-change-white-underwear

[NUguy514]

25 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

Is this just a Wimbledon thing?

It's definitely not a thing at either the US Open or the Australian Open.  I'm 97% sure it isn't at the French Open, either, but I hate clay court tennis, usually don't watch that Slam, and can't remember with absolute certainty.

[Mrs. P.]

I think this became a tradition at Wimbledon because there used to be royalty in attendance and the players were expected to curtsy to the royal box as they left. That tradition seems to have gone by the wayside.

[dcalley]

Whoops, I typed this now-redundant post and didn't hit submit: Back in the day, the players had to bow or curtsy to the royal box (even if no royalty was in it). I assume that is the genesis of the "leave together" tradition. Since 2003, the players only bow if the queen or Prince Philip is there.

[shok]

17 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Man the game really has become 30 is the new 20. We have Venus at almost 37 in two Grand Slam finals this year, Federer at 36 is trying to do the same, Rafa at 31 played probably the best tennis of his life during the clay season - it's pretty amazing when you consider how many people in the past retired at like 26/27. 

How quickly people forget. I've seen this printed in a number of different stories that Venus is the only player who has been in two GS finals this year. Umm, Rafa has been too. He was in the Australian Open final and of course the French Open so he's played pretty darn well all year, not just during the clay season. It's so frustrating how he doesn't get the credit that is due. No matter how well he is playing and achieving, every single article about him has to mention who he's lost to or how long it was since he won this or that. Did anyone hear a mention of Federer being upset by Stakhovsky? No, but Kyrgios and Rosol and Darcis sure got famous because they beat Rafa when his knees were so bad. Don't know why the media is always so negative about Rafa.

[truthaboutluv]

3 hours ago, shok said:

How quickly people forget. I've seen this printed in a number of different stories that Venus is the only player who has been in two GS finals this year. Umm, Rafa has been too.

Yes, I completely forgot that my favorite tennis player has been in two Grand Slam finals this year. Okay, sure. My point about Venus was regarding the fact that she's literally almost 40 and is in two Grand Slam finals. If someone can tell me a person recently who did this, I'd love to know. I am well aware of how good Rafa has been playing all year but it is my opinion that he took his game to another level throughout the clay season and that's all my comment was referencing. It wasn't a knock against what he did at the start of the year or even how he played at Wimbledon this year. I thought he played pretty well and just lost a hard fought battle.

But despite the loss, I still think he's having one of his best years in recent times. With all due respect, this need you seem to have to make Rafa out to be some persecuted player by the media and others, seem like a bit of a stretch to me. Yes, he is not as deified as Federer - who is? And I'm sure that grates plenty for those who can't stand Roger. But Rafa is pretty well lauded himself in my opinion. Not everyone is going to love or praise him but I have never seen this overwhelming media attack and negativity against Rafa that seems to be suggested. YMMV. 

[Spunkygal]

I wonder how many minutes of tennis I have watched these last two weeks? I don't know, but I am ready for Monday so I can resume my normal life! #tennisaddictsanonymous

[Miss Chevious]

1 hour ago, Spunkygal said:

I wonder how many minutes of tennis I have watched these last two weeks? I don't know, but I am ready for Monday so I can resume my normal life! #tennisaddictsanonymous

I'm right there with ya! My family & friends already know not to contact me during Wimbledon weeks. And when I worked, I always scheduled vacation time during Wimbledon. 

I'll bet the network execs are pulling for a Federer win. A Cilic/Berdych final won't be drawing in the viewers. A lot of people would just be meh, who cares.

[Ohwell]

I'm bummed about Querrey losing, so now I'm pulling for Fed to win the whole thing.  

[Mrs. P.]

Although he has won the first two tiebreakers, Roger sure has his hands full with Berdych. I don't think anyone expected this match to be so close.

[SuburbanHangSuite]

Poor Berdych.  Valiant effort but almost doesn't count.  Roger is a freak of nature.  

[truthaboutluv]

28 minutes ago, Mrs. P. said:

Although he has won the first two tiebreakers, Roger sure has his hands full with Berdych. I don't think anyone expected this match to be so close.

I watched the match and I didn't think it was close to be honest. I never for a second felt like Berdych had a shot and once Roger won the second set tiebreak, I knew it was just a matter of time before he got the break in the third and it would be "that's all she wrote". I felt like Berdych was always just playing catch and fighting to hang on in the match. It never felt like a truly competitive match that could have gone either way. 

I would like to say the final on Sunday could be interesting but I doubt it. Without question, I believe Cilic is capable of beating Federer but it would require him to play his absolute best tennis and more importantly to not falter if he gets close like he did last year. Maybe this will be his chance to avenge that choke performance. 

Edited July 14, 2017 by truthaboutluv

[SuburbanHangSuite]

Damn, Venus.  Losing that 1st set was devastating.  And her play against Konta was so strong.  So disappointed for her.

[truthaboutluv]

42 minutes ago, SuburbanHangSuite said:

Damn, Venus.  Losing that 1st set was devastating.  And her play against Konta was so strong.  So disappointed for her.

Yeah it was disappointing to watch after such a strong and well played first set by both women. But yeah, I think after getting so close, having the chances and losing the set anyway, Venus just sort of deflated. And that's the thing about tennis, a few minutes of lapsed focus and before you know it, a player's down multiple breaks. But kudos to Muguruza. Hopefully she starts becoming a little more consistent throughout the year because she clearly has the talent. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by truthaboutluv

[blackwing]

What a shame.  I was rooting so hard for Venus.  She was up 5-4 with two set points and couldn't close it out.  Then she got broken and when I saw the look of anguish on her face, I knew she was done.   It looked like she just completely gave up in the second set.

Still, two finals in the season is a great accomplishment for her.  But very reminiscent of Martina losing the final in 94 also at 37 years old in what was her last chance at another Slam title.  The other day Chris Evert said that she was so annoyed that Martina lost that final to Conchita Martinez because Conchita only had a baseline game.   I remember rooting for Martina that day too and also being disappointed.  I hope Venus still has a few years left in her.  

Kudos to Garbine, she played very well and is a great champion.

[shok]

Wow, quite an article on Novak. Haven't seen anyone in the (English) press be quite so revealing about him.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/wimbledon-whats-the-deal-with-novak-djokovic.html