July 6th, 2008
|09:37 pm - Wimbledon ...|
Well, that was some tennis match - I'm not a huge tennis fan, but I watch from time to time, and that was quite amazing. So many opportunites for both players to take control of the match, but neither could overcome the other's resistance for so long. At one point in the last set (possibly the second rain delay, when they were at 2 sets each, 5 games each, 40-all, I think), one commentator said that Federer had won 174 points and Nadal 172, and it certainly seemed close all the way.
Now, I do have to wonder if Serena and Venus Williams could have produced a similarly exciting match, if they'd had 5 sets instead of 3 ? Why don't the women get 5 sets for the Grand Slam events too ?
Current Mood: happy
Yeh I never watch sports and having vaguely watched the first two sets earlier today as at a pals who was watching it, found myaself utterly gripped by the final set!!!
|Date:||July 6th, 2008 11:37 pm (UTC)|| |
Why don't the women get 5 sets for the Grand Slam events too ?
Don't know, but I wish they did. Or the alternate view, which is have best of 3 sets for the early rounds, then go to best of 5 from final 16 onwards for both genders (forget who suggested this, someone in The Age I think). Would it lead to more upsets in the early rounds? Hard to tell, but it'd certainly focus some players a lot more - and overall the seeds would still win through, that's why they're seeded.
It would also shut up the equal money argument, which bugs me Every Single Australian Open.
That model seems to work well for snooker. You could even have 1 set in the first round, then 3, then 5 for the quarters and semis, and 7 for the final.
Now I'm really jealous! I've got a cold, and a rather busy schedule for this coming week, so I had to crash after the first set. (Darn time zones!) Let me know when the DVD comes out, OK?
Re women playing 5 sets: I still think Venus should have been allowed to enter that "open" (men's) tournament she applied for a few years back :-)