The general feeling after yesterday's match was that Nadal had thoroughly outplayed Murray. Yet about halfway through the third set, a commentator observed that Murray had actually won more points in the match, despite being two sets down.
I've never been quite sure to what extent the bizarre scoring system creates the drama in tennis, nor indeed to what extent great players can 'manage' the system, eg. cruising through the early points in games, or not chasing 40-0 games when receiving, to conserve mental energy for critical points etc. If the system consisted of sets scored like table-tennis or squash, would it be a completely different game, and would different players dominate?
3 comments:
Undoubtedly. I think it would give an undue advantage to those with a huge first serve.
I once went to see a tennis at Indian Wells in the States. The crowd was more ManU V liverpool than Blazers and ties, with ACDC and Thin Lizzy playing between the points.
Then I went to the following year to Wimbledon and had to endure Cliff singing, My mum quite liked it though.
So I can tell you the problem with tennis is not the scoring system its Cliff Richard. (But we have a plan in place)
No more Cliff
The tennis scoring system, along with scented candles and the x-factor, is one of the greatest creations of man - a French man, it is thought, following a 'clockface' principal, the only real tinkering being the tie-break, another masterpiece, which efficiently brings what could be a long game, to a close, often amid great excitement. Doubt whether a change(first to six)would bring much advantage to any, say, big server, but the loss would be to something perfect - beautiful you could say.
Post a Comment