-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The 2016 Australian Open |OT| 18th January - 31st January
- Thread starter LuuKyK
- Start date
- Status
John Dunbar
correct about everything
so why was azarenka considered such a heavy favourite pre-tournament anyway?
Heavy favourite? That would be silly. Some tennis expert predictions are certainly silly. Personally I said I was very intrigued, because it's the first time in a long while she starts unbothered by injuries and she's seemed hungry. And obviously she played well for the first rounds. But there was a big question mark next to her since she had a full season without normal operation. Losing to Kerber is not a shock.
I'm an idiot. Can someone explain to me what Kerber did wrong here? Looks to me the umpire was the one making the mistake.
Some people don't like that she didn't try to help Hantuchova and that she waited on the "wrong" side. I can understand that but she couldn't change the garbage-tier decision buy the umpire anyway. Even the chief referee was dead wrong on this one.
Rooting for Monfils on this one.
Sounds interesting, I'd like to see it in action though before making any judgement. Needs a better name
I'd be wary of any change motivated by the lack of popularity of tennis in North America (which is the basis of the article, even if it's not told upfront). The sport isn't popular there because they have no big champion since Roddick and because the USTA isn't doing a proper advertising job.
Most US sports have complicated rules too (try to follow baseball when you don't know it well), trying to change tennis scoring system just because it's less popular there is silly.If you want to see some of these rules in action, watch the IPTL matches from last summer : time-limit, no-ad... it's fast-food tennis. I've nothing against fast-food but you don't serve fast-food for big occasions.
Aren't a whole lot of the things mentioned about the scoring system in the first couple of paragraphs actually myths? I'm sure I've heard l'ouef debunked.
You had Steffi Graf. All such arguments are invalid.
Yes, but that's more like a curse than a blessing. Germans expect to be #1. Second place is just the first loser here. It's a shame. But a German winning a GS again? Tennis boom here we go!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't know, it's all well and good doing this against someone with a poor RoS like Wawrinka or a clown like Monfils, but I feel like Raonic's game is fundamentally unsuited to playing Djokovic or Murray at the big events. If it was a Raonic-Federer semifinal, I'd give reasonable odds on Raonic making the final, but I think Murray will be too much for him.
I agree. This is the first chance I've had to see him play during this Aussie Open, and he is significantly improved. It's stunning. He's not just at the net to be there. He's actually hitting some pretty good volleys.
I think tennis has the best scoring system in the world. It's simultaneously, in my mind, the fairest (ie, the more deserving player generally wins) and also facilitates the potential for the most excitement out of any sport I can think of. The idea of introducing a 24-point 'extended tie-break' with the justification that "it means every point means something and adds to the tension" misses the point. You don't want every point to carry the same weight as another. In basketball, where this is the case, and I love NBA, scoring can often become a bit stale because every goal scored is just another small dot next to a larger sum, so a single passage of play can never really be all that critical, outside of final buzzer-beater moments, regardless of how exciting and flashy the actual moves are.
Tennis' scoring, on the other hand, has the pace of a good story, where the tension ebbs and flows in a natural way. Where the start of a set is deliberately light and stress-free, little jabs and blocks take form slowly. Constant, small charges in tension - 15, 30, 40, game, release. Opportunities to break, and tension rises. The player holds serve and the tension is released again. Slowly, over the course of a set, the tension reaches fever-pitch, until the final nail-biting points are played for. A player wins a set in excitement, the first 'act' is over and the tension drops again, only to build again. It's a very natural, dynamic rollercoaster. It's important to note that, while all points are 'equal,' and there are enough of them in a set that the better player will have proven themselves over the course of a set to reach a set point, the scoring means that inevitably it'll come down to a few points that'll decide the set, which is thrilling. It has the excitement and big moments of a soccer match (Winning a set is effectively like scoring a goal in soccer) but without the possibility of it being 'unnearned,' 'lucky,' or 'random.'
Another reason why a 24-point tiebreak system isn't necessarily more 'exciting' is that sport becomes boring when there's a big blowout. The tennis scoring system is great because, while a dominant player will remain better at all stages in the match, there is always the chance that a player can come back. You're never too far off. If, in the proposed scoring system, the score was 22-6, there's next to no chance the latter player will be able to make a comeback. You'll have to win 17 points before the other player wins 2. The set is now boring. But in the normal scoring system, if you're down a break, even two, stringing together 3 or 4 points is all it takes to get you back in the set. That possibility keeps the set engaging.
I honestly think that if basketball implemented a system similar to tennis, complete with breaks, advantages, set points etc, it'd be a lot more thrilling. Obviously I don't know how or if it'd actually work, but putting more weight on specific plays where you'd say "if you score next, you win the set. If the other team scores, it gets knocked back to deuce" would be extremely tense and open the gates to some pretty big moments I think.
I recognise the problem with match length, and besides player health, the concern that a 5-set match becomes a test of fitness, rather than tennis skill, but there's nothing in sport that's really like a 5-set tennis epic, where both players have given everything, pulling out all stops and there's this energy in the arena and it could fall either way. I wouldn't want to lose that in any way.
100% agree with this. Very good explanation why the compartimented scoring works so well. It can be a bit hard to learn and the terms sometimes don't make much sense outside of their vague historical origins, but the system itself is pretty much perfect.
squeakywheel
Member
Go Milos! Almost there. No Milos fans here?
Crickets ...
Crickets ...
His volleys have been remarkable. He used to be horrible at the net. And now, he can't miss!
I feel Monfils would have had a better chance if his draw wouldn't have been so "easy". No top player to prepare him to this type of match. Still, Raonic probably deserves it with his good playing resolutions.
I still don't think he can beat an in form Murray. But Andy has a lot of personal things going on right now so why not ?
I still don't think he can beat an in form Murray. But Andy has a lot of personal things going on right now so why not ?
Randy Monk
Member
Is that damn sleeve even legal?
Damn sexy sleeve
Damn sexy sleeve
TheAutomator
Banned
This Raonic lad is pretty good
oipic
Member
Fantastic post - good points (pardon the pun), and well made. Eloquently encapsulates all the thoughts running through my mind while reading the essay and its proposals (which itself was a good read, as much as I disagree with many of its arguments).
If tennis has any problems, real or perceived, I fail to see how anyone could count the scoring system among them.
Having said that, I did once have a great debate with some folks about renaming either '30' or '40' to sound more distinct from each other... but that's a whole other discussion!
(has anyone made the requisite 'another game for Milos!' reference so far this Open?)
You're absolutely right, yeah. Fed is still remarkably one of the free players who can really challenge Nole. But I think when it really counts in the slams, Djokovic has the edge.
Kotetsu534
Member
Very much agree with the above on tennis' scoring system. One often overlooked feature of tennis is that it gives the players exactly as long as they need to decide a winner. If a match is a one-sided stomp, it's over and done with in 50-90 minutes, but if it's a great contest it can last for several hours. Not good for the TV companies who'd rather they knew exactly when matches would start and finish, like with most team sports, of course.
The scoring system is also what makes tennis such a mental battle. Can a player handle a big set back, where they pour their efforts into a long game or set and come away with nothing to show for it thanks to one or two poor mistakes? Murray put in 70 minutes of tough, physical tennis into the 2nd set last night, lost it, then recovered and moved on (to be expected of a top player, of course). Lesser players often can't.
The scoring system is also what makes tennis such a mental battle. Can a player handle a big set back, where they pour their efforts into a long game or set and come away with nothing to show for it thanks to one or two poor mistakes? Murray put in 70 minutes of tough, physical tennis into the 2nd set last night, lost it, then recovered and moved on (to be expected of a top player, of course). Lesser players often can't.
I'd say Test Cricket is a similar beast, there; just occasionally there's the possibility of a spectacular rear-guard action from the back end of the team. Doesn't happen often, but the possibility is genuine.
Don't get why anyone would want to allow nets in serving. Players still apologize/ get upset when a rally ball is affected by the net. Why would you want it in serves as well? Why would you not want to guarantee that at least the first shot of the rally is hit cleanly? Would you really want big points decided by serves hitting the net and dripping over? That doesn't reward good serving or 'punish' bad returning.
Diprosalic
Banned
you casual
Diprosalic
Banned
if anything i would say that net is a fault.
GordonHalfman
Member
What if they just made so you lose the point if your shot hits any part of the net?
Diprosalic
Banned
Legend in another GS final.
Woooo...I am,Canadian here,but the match started at 3 A.M for us up here(14 hours difference with Australia hehe)...
IISANDERII
Member
Wow Ranic has really improved his movement and quickness! Looks like he trimmed down, those legs were massive, too massive for tennis.
YoshiStrife
Member
"Not only would such a system make it easier for fans to follow; the precise number of points between changeovers would mean pinpoint predictability for commercial breaks."
Disgusting.
I am sorry, what is this 'commercial break' of which you speak?
Dommo, very good post, however I would like to elaborate on something.
-it is very difficult to win points directly off serve or return
-the team that is serving is less likely to win the point, the team that won the last point is serving
-if a player goes through a bad spell or loses focus, the coach can instantly change him/her
-if the above applies to the entire team, the coach can call for a tactical time-out to stop the bleeding
None of these could be made applicable in tennis and as a result winning 6 or 7 points in a row would be much more frequent. As you said, the current scoring system in tennis softens the impact of such situations, meanwhile the linear system would have to resort to very arbitrary and weird solutions, that would fundamentally change the sport.
We do have a sport that employs system - volleyball has linear 25-point sets. Sets are typically thrilling throughout and are seesaw battles most of the time. However it employs a number of mechanisms to achieve that:
-it is very difficult to win points directly off serve or return
-the team that is serving is less likely to win the point, the team that won the last point is serving
-if a player goes through a bad spell or loses focus, the coach can instantly change him/her
-if the above applies to the entire team, the coach can call for a tactical time-out to stop the bleeding
None of these could be made applicable in tennis and as a result winning 6 or 7 points in a row would be much more frequent. As you said, the current scoring system in tennis softens the impact of such situations, meanwhile the linear system would have to resort to very arbitrary and weird solutions, that would fundamentally change the sport.
PedroPanache
Member
It feels perfect and I just can't imagine any tweaks to the system that would somehow enhance it. I'm reminded of the Murray/Djokovic Wimbledon final in 2013. A somewhat routine 3 set victory, aside from the utterly thrilling and amazing last game. So, even in matches that aren't thrilling 5 setters, we can have these mini-dramas that occur through almost sheer force of will. That last game will live long in my memory. I love the scoring system in tennis and enjoyed reading your eloquent and convincing defence of a wonderful points system.
She's incredible. She's in the quarters of mixed doubles too.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
why would human valium have fans?
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Way to go Raonic. Imagine if Federer actually beat Djokovic and then lost to Raonic in the final? It wouldn't happen, but it's possible.
I agree about tennis having a good scoring system. A straight-set win can still be tense and exciting throughout.
I agree about tennis having a good scoring system. A straight-set win can still be tense and exciting throughout.
Depends on how long Serena - Aga will play, no? I'll wake up at 5 if I have to
to see Kerber winning GO ANGIE GO!!!!
YoshiStrife
Member
Aga has beaten Serena before at last year's Hopman Cup. Say what you will, I am taking that!
I would LOVE for Aga to win. Totally rooting for her.
As long as she loses against Kerber in the final.
YoshiStrife
Member
Vice versa here
Aga-Angie final would be really cool and is what I'm hoping for, especially since they're pretty close friends and were hitting together prior to the tourney starting. Possibly the two most in-form players coming into the tournament.
RedAssedApe
Banned
roger gonna get delpotro-ed again?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked