Returning to the men (5 sets) and women (3 sets) debate for a moment: A genuine and honest question: is there a reason given by the powers that be as to why the female players only play best of 3 at grand slams? I don't have a particularly strong view on the issue either way, but from a layman's perspective, it does seem the obvious way to close the debate.
Like I say, not trying to stir, just genuine curiosity from someone who doesn't know much about tennis.
I remember hearing once that the ridiculous thing is that the players union/council said they'd be happy to play 5 and got told no.
The scheduling of the Grand Slams would be an issue if women played 5 setters, you'd have to extend the tournament by a few more days, that's probably why
Couldn't they make the early rounds best of three? Change it to best of five at, say, the last 16. Then the shit matches are out of the way quick and there may be the odd upset as some whippersnapper powers past a seed before they've managed to get into gear. Do this for both genders. Piece of piss, surely?
the crowd have just sat there for three and half hours watching the first semi. Probably gone to get a drink, stretch their legs, or bite to eat to get them through next couple of hours
The queues for Pimms will be horrendous as several thousand all head off for liquid refreshment!
the crowd have just sat there for three and half hours watching the first semi. Probably gone to get a drink, stretch their legs, or bite to eat to get them through next couple of hours
That was kind of my point, as raised by McEnroe on Wednesday. Give them more time to get back in. Most of the first set of the quarter final was seen by a half full audience. He bought Henman up on it as his role in the higher echelons of UK tennis.
I have no stats to back this up, but my perception is that first time grand slam finalists tend to finish runners up. Of course they're not usually playing a Brit when they make their grand slam final debut.
Raonic will win at least one major in his career, no reason it can't be tomorrow, although I obviously hope it isn't.
I have no stats to back this up, but my perception is that first time grand slam finalists tend to finish runners up. Of course they're not usually playing a Brit when they make their grand slam final debut.
Raonic will win at least one major in his career, no reason it can't be tomorrow, although I obviously hope it isn't.
If anything the opposite is true, with a lot of people winning their first in recent years, though not Djokovic or Murray
Returning to the men (5 sets) and women (3 sets) debate for a moment: A genuine and honest question: is there a reason given by the powers that be as to why the female players only play best of 3 at grand slams? I don't have a particularly strong view on the issue either way, but from a layman's perspective, it does seem the obvious way to close the debate.
Like I say, not trying to stir, just genuine curiosity from someone who doesn't know much about tennis.
I remember hearing once that the ridiculous thing is that the players union/council said they'd be happy to play 5 and got told no.
The scheduling of the Grand Slams would be an issue if women played 5 setters, you'd have to extend the tournament by a few more days, that's probably why
Couldn't they make the early rounds best of three? Change it to best of five at, say, the last 16. Then the shit matches are out of the way quick and there may be the odd upset as some whippersnapper powers past a seed before they've managed to get into gear. Do this for both genders. Piece of piss, surely?
They reduced the 1st round of the men's doubles to 3 sets after all the rain delays, that was quite controversial
Men should not be allowed to finish a game in 3 sets as they get paid more than women. If I was subcontracting the building of, say, a public toilet out of breeze blocks and I employed a mixed team of women and men I would be outraged if the contract I had agreed with the men that they would earn more, on the understanding that they worked faster, for longer hours and erected more breeze blocks, was subsequently and arbitrarily undermined by the men arranging between themselves to run out of breeze blocks and thus to build walls of the same dimension as that agreed with the women.
I would be absolutely furious. Obviously men should be forced to play out 5 sets whether or not they have already lost in 3.
For fucks sake, guys, it's about time we were able to have a grown-up conversation about this. Use some common sense.
PC gone absolutely mad. No wonder we are all fucked.
After Sunday, only 8 players will have made more appearances in Grand Slam finals than Andy Murray and 1, 2 and 3 in that list are still playing.
He will be level with McEnroe, Wilander, and Edberg and ahead of the likes of Becker and Laver.
Even if he wins, though, he will still have easily the worst conversion rate of all his peers, but this record is both testament to his level of consistency as well as the quality of the era in which he has played.
I saw Raonic outplay Murray in a five setter at the Australian Open earlier this season. He would have won if he hadn't got injured. I reckon Sunday will be a classic.
Think Raonic will beat Murray. Everyone is expecting Murray to win easily as he has avoided Federer and Djokovic. That's when he will slip up.
The uninitiated might be, but Murray won't be.
The challenge will be it's probably the first final where he has started clear favourite, if not favourite full stop. That requires a different mentality, but its not like he has a brilliant record as the underdog in finals, whereas he usually makes the final having started all the previous matches as favourite, so it may actually suit him better.
Murray is brilliant at neutralising big servers, that's what will give Murray the edge on Sunday, but it will be a proper contest, as Raonic will be a multiple Grand Slam winner, but hopefully not yet!
Think Raonic will beat Murray. Everyone is expecting Murray to win easily as he has avoided Federer and Djokovic. That's when he will slip up.
He is playing the player who beat Federer, and the player who beat the player that beat Djokovic. Andy Murray is not the world number 2 because he takes opponents lightly. He went to town on Berdych as he did low-ranking players earlier in the tournament. One of the outstanding things for me in this competition is that he has been focussed and ruthless in a way he hasn't been since last time he had Lendl in his team. I don't know what he does, but it works.
Raonic is the best of the 25's and under,and Barring injuries will win Slams.
He has the brains between the ears which certain other young players don't have plus unlike Aussie Nick K, doesn't disappear when he is behind. Andy will need to read the fantastic serves of Raonic early on, or else tie breaks could decide more than 1 set.
If Murray's not on his A game tomorrow he will lose.
With Nadal career beginning to fade because of injuries. Federer in the autumn of his career because of age. Novak having 1 off tournament, This is a great chance for Andy to win his 3rd slam, which he needs to win to elevate him closer to 3 of the best players that have every played the game.
I fancied Raonic for the final even when he was 2 sets down to Goffin in the fourth round (after Novak lost in top half) he drifted out to 16-1 from 7-1.
Murray and France to made a good sporting Sunday ?
I think Murray will do it, he's got a track record of doing it when it counts, and when he's lost in finals it's been because he's been up against better players, and not because he's frozen
Serena had a pretty decent day. Won the singles to equal Steffi Graf's record of 22 grand slam titles and then won the doubles with Venus which they only entered as a warm up for the Olympics. They're now 14-0 in grand slam doubles finals!!
Serena had a pretty decent day. Won the singles to equal Steffi Graf's record of 22 grand slam titles and then won the doubles with Venus which they only entered as a warm up for the Olympics. They're now 14-0 in grand slam doubles finals!!
22 titles in singles 14 in ladies doubles 2 mixed doubles
What is doesn't do is create much interest in women's tennis, having someone so dominant in singles for so long, and able to win the doubles as well when she chooses to compete...
Serena had a pretty decent day. Won the singles to equal Steffi Graf's record of 22 grand slam titles and then won the doubles with Venus which they only entered as a warm up for the Olympics. They're now 14-0 in grand slam doubles finals!!
22 titles in singles 14 in ladies doubles 2 mixed doubles
What is doesn't do is create much interest in women's tennis, having someone so dominant in singles for so long, and able to win the doubles as well when she chooses to compete...
I agree, but it's a phenomenal achievement and Serena one of the greatest sports people of all time. Maybe they could suggest that she gets honourably retired or something because I have to admit I no longer watch women's tennis much apart from the final.
Comments
Do this for both genders. Piece of piss, surely?
Raonic will win at least one major in his career, no reason it can't be tomorrow, although I obviously hope it isn't.
Raonic vs. Murray in the final then.
I would be absolutely furious. Obviously men should be forced to play out 5 sets whether or not they have already lost in 3.
For fucks sake, guys, it's about time we were able to have a grown-up conversation about this. Use some common sense.
PC gone absolutely mad. No wonder we are all fucked.
He will be level with McEnroe, Wilander, and Edberg and ahead of the likes of Becker and Laver.
Even if he wins, though, he will still have easily the worst conversion rate of all his peers, but this record is both testament to his level of consistency as well as the quality of the era in which he has played.
The challenge will be it's probably the first final where he has started clear favourite, if not favourite full stop. That requires a different mentality, but its not like he has a brilliant record as the underdog in finals, whereas he usually makes the final having started all the previous matches as favourite, so it may actually suit him better.
I think Murray will win on Sunday.
Raonic is the best of the 25's and under,and Barring injuries will win Slams.
He has the brains between the ears which certain other young players don't have plus unlike Aussie Nick K, doesn't disappear when he is behind.
Andy will need to read the fantastic serves of Raonic early on, or else tie breaks could decide more than 1 set.
If Murray's not on his A game tomorrow he will lose.
With Nadal career beginning to fade because of injuries.
Federer in the autumn of his career because of age.
Novak having 1 off tournament,
This is a great chance for Andy to win his 3rd slam,
which he needs to win to elevate him closer to 3 of the best players that have every played the game.
I fancied Raonic for the final even when he was 2 sets down to Goffin in the fourth round (after Novak lost in top half) he drifted out to 16-1 from 7-1.
Murray and France to made a good sporting Sunday ?
Don't bet on it.
Heather Watson in the final of the Mixed as well.
14 in ladies doubles
2 mixed doubles
What is doesn't do is create much interest in women's tennis, having someone so dominant in singles for so long, and able to win the doubles as well when she chooses to compete...