Tennis
-
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
@rancid-schnitzel said in Tennis:
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
Evidence? This is the Fern. It's part of a trend to shorten sport and the uncertainty of schedules when a men's 5 set match can last anywhere from 90 minutes to 6 hours. So far the special nature of the 4 Grand Slams mean they get blanket coverage for 2 weeks but I can see the day when T.V. demands a final fits into a time slot and then it will be 3 sets, tiebreak at 6-6 in the 3rd set.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Tennis:
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
Evidence? This is the Fern. It's part of a trend to shorten sport and the uncertainty of schedules when a men's 5 set match can last anywhere from 90 minutes to 6 hours. So far the special nature of the 4 Grand Slams mean they get blanket coverage for 2 weeks but I can see the day when T.V. demands a final fits into a time slot and then it will be 3 sets, tiebreak at 6-6 in the 3rd set.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Tennis:
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
Evidence? This is the Fern. It's part of a trend to shorten sport and the uncertainty of schedules when a men's 5 set match can last anywhere from 90 minutes to 6 hours. So far the special nature of the 4 Grand Slams mean they get blanket coverage for 2 weeks but I can see the day when T.V. demands a final fits into a time slot and then it will be 3 sets, tiebreak at 6-6 in the 3rd set.
Why hasn't this happened yet and why would it suddenly happen in the future, particularly with more channels and means of watching? If there was any intention of doing this I'd imagine it would have been done in the US long ago.
-
On the subject of tennis, I watched Bjorg Mcenroe last night. Excellent film. Recommended.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Tennis:
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
Evidence? This is the Fern. It's part of a trend to shorten sport and the uncertainty of schedules when a men's 5 set match can last anywhere from 90 minutes to 6 hours. So far the special nature of the 4 Grand Slams mean they get blanket coverage for 2 weeks but I can see the day when T.V. demands a final fits into a time slot and then it will be 3 sets, tiebreak at 6-6 in the 3rd set.
Why hasn't this happened yet and why would it suddenly happen in the future, particularly with more channels and means of watching? If there was any intention of doing this I'd imagine it would have been done in the US long ago.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Tennis:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Tennis:
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
Evidence? This is the Fern. It's part of a trend to shorten sport and the uncertainty of schedules when a men's 5 set match can last anywhere from 90 minutes to 6 hours. So far the special nature of the 4 Grand Slams mean they get blanket coverage for 2 weeks but I can see the day when T.V. demands a final fits into a time slot and then it will be 3 sets, tiebreak at 6-6 in the 3rd set.
Why hasn't this happened yet and why would it suddenly happen in the future, particularly with more channels and means of watching? If there was any intention of doing this I'd imagine it would have been done in the US long ago.
It may never happen because the Grand Slams are so popular. But you can be sure TV wants it to happen so they can package up individual matches better. It happened in the doubles because nobody wanted long matches that nobody cares about.
-
I just cannot understand how a Wimbledon final featuring Kevin Anderson didnt rate higher... especially as the only competition it had on TV at the same time was Football world cup final....
Tis a mystery...@baron-silas-greenback said in Tennis:
I just cannot understand how a Wimbledon final featuring Kevin Anderson didnt rate higher... especially as the only competition it had on TV at the same time was Football world cup final....
Tis a mystery...Don't be sexist
-
Nigel Owens calling Serena out on her crappy behaviour. What a legend this man is.
"Imagine someone said something to me which I didn't like and I called it homophobic, when it wasn't, because I knew that would give more weight to the accusation. I'd view that as unacceptable behaviour on my part. It's something I would never do," Owens wrote. "It's wrong, but I also wouldn't do it because it takes away from the real issues we do need to address. In a way, Serena is belittling the sexism debate, when there are people who should be properly called out for that kind of thing, homophobia or racism. Her actions do not particularly help that cause because what Ramos did was not sexist." -
This was also in today's newspaper. Well worth the read.
-
@Bovidae the pay those umpires receive is an absolute disgrace given how much the top players are making. I'm surprised anyone gives up their time to do it given how thankless the work is.
-
When I flicked over the comments I saw one that said
"Wow. Turns out when Mark isn’t writing about Rugby he’s actually quite good and has sensible things to say. Stick to this Mark! Well done." -
When I flicked over the comments I saw one that said
"Wow. Turns out when Mark isn’t writing about Rugby he’s actually quite good and has sensible things to say. Stick to this Mark! Well done."@booboo Nice one. I actually looked up the antonym for misogyny about a year ago because it was becoming apparent that there is a lot of anti male feeling by a vocal minority of idiots. Well done Mr Reason for calling it out.
I thought that I didn't like Serena because she is a petulant child, and then I was told that it was because she was black and a woman. Fortunately I remembered that I didn't like McEnroe for behaving poorly either...Reason prevailed.
