Tennis 101.

I saw that rugby did one of these so I thought what would I like to be put into room 101 from tennis today.
Here's a few ideas.

1) Andrew Castle commentary
2) Sue Barker
3) The term "golden era"
4) Towelling off after every point
5) Umpires, who like many players, seem to disregard the 25 second time between points rule.

Over to you.

Holy Grails

 

I like your 1, 4 and 5.

Also I would add the one eyed tribalism of some tennis fans who can't appreciate much outside their favourite player.

Any rally over 30 shots. If no-one can hit a winner after 15 tries, call it a draw.

Troublemaker JHM! Any more realistic ones?

I second the absolute nonsense of holy grails.

Or should I say, the attempt to make your players slam more important than the others for reasons associated to allegiance or a dislike of a another player.   

LuvSports! wrote:Troublemaker JHM! Any more realistic ones?

Doubles!      

Touche!

Lots of running away going on. Monty Python fans here? "RUN AWAY!"

"Brave Sir Robin ran away"
"No!"
"Bravely ran away away"
"I didn't!"
"When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled"

 

That also could be 'a fart in your general direction'

Fans that can not discuss players without resorting to 'my dad is bigger than your dad' style of discussion, which is best left on the play ground

Can I put tennis 101 into room 101?   

Jet propelled! Damn it LS now you're going off topic. Homer Simpson says   

1) Any non results-based award i.e. fan favourite, humanitarian, Edberg.
2) Nike
3) Commentators declaring a shot to be "too good".
4) The Roland Garros crowd
5) Shrieking
6) Biting trophies
7) Chest bumps
8) The Olympics
9) Speeches from sponsors
10) ITF rule 24 G

odd cup size

LuvSports! wrote:odd cup size

And shape.

Yes, Madrid, I'm talking to you.

Doubles matches...hehe.

er...net cord rule on serves. Just 'let' it be.

 

Mixed doubles - I've never ever understood the attraction.

Players stopping for a drink after 1 game of a set. Does my head in. 1 game! They've usually had a sit down and a drink 2 minutes earlier!

And the camera angle and 'through the nets' tv view at the Paris maters. That can do one too.

Frenetic back side, and now also front side, grasping.

Pushy players.

Menshealth.

Trophy biting.

Wimbledon ball boys, and I mean all of them!!   

Moderators on internet forums   

down with The Man!

What a good idea. Here's my 5.

1) Double handed backhands
2) Towelling down after each point
3) The use of the word 'if' or any hypothetical situation in any GOAT debate - because they can be fun if articulated correctly
4) Any rally over 20 shots.
5) The notion that in a capitalist society (whether you agree with that or not is not the point here!) an inferior quality product  should be rewarded (financially) equally solely on the basis of gender. Hasn't anyone spotted that that is inequality?

Lets.

If it clips the net, but goes in, then play on.

Having to win the 5th set by 2 games.

if its 6 all in final set, just play tie break.

Absolutely not.

1) The cultish worship of the swiss Swoosh wearer
2) any big server who moves like a pregnant sow
3) the fitness epidemic in tennis
4) Julius' marx's comedy it will clear the room faster than a man yelling "he has a bomb" in an airport
5) Rafa's butt picking

westisbest wrote:Having to win the 5th set by 2 games.

if its 6 all in final set, just play tie break.

I like this idea!

I'm happy to keep the "win by 2" rule for the final.

But I hate the fact that if you have a semi that goes long, the final tends to be worse because one of the players is spent.

So the 5 sets make less difference than the extra few games at the end of the match?

Sue barker
Sue Barker interviewing people after a match on court
Sue Barker thinking herself so funny and laughing at her own jokes
Sue Barker interviewing through her 'one sided coloured glasses'
Sue Barker in a question of Sport
Sue Barker

socal1976 wrote:1) The cultish worship of the swiss Swoosh wearer
2) any big server who moves like a pregnant sow
3) the fitness epidemic in tennis
4) Julius' marx's comedy it will clear the room faster than a man yelling "he has a bomb" in an airport
5) Rafa's butt picking

Tend to agree but add
6) Novak´s chest thumping , shirt ripping and childish comedy.

LuvSports! wrote:So the 5 sets make less difference than the extra few games at the end of the match?

Not even only a case of 5 sets.

Do you think Federer was not hindered in the Olympic final by going 19-17 in the third in his SF?

And "an extra few games" isn't a small factor when a whole set is only 12 games at most.

Cilic v Querrey 17-15 at W12, Mathieu v Isner 18-16 at RG12... these guys effectively played 8 sets. And I've not even mentioned Isner v Mahut!

HM Murdoch wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:So the 5 sets make less difference than the extra few games at the end of the match?

Not even only a case of 5 sets.

Do you think Federer was not hindered in the Olympic final by going 19-17 in the third in his SF?

And "an extra few games" isn't a small factor when a whole set is only 12 games at most.

Cilic v Querrey 17-15 at W12, Mathieu v Isner 18-16 at RG12... these guys effectively played 8 sets. And I've not even mentioned Isner v Mahut!

Then they shoudd win it quicker. Sorry, if you are not good enough to win a match without going to 17-15 or 100 vs 102 - then it is your tough luck (IMO)

Riskysports wrote:Then they shoudd win it quicker. Sorry, if you are not good enough to win a match without going to 17-15 or 100 vs 102 - then it is your tough luck (IMO)

Yes, and tough luck to anyone scheduled to play afterwards and tough luck to the crowd who are stuck watching an endless match.

Also, by your logic, why have tie breaks in any set? If you're not good enough to break your opponents serve in 6 attempts, tough luck, keep going until you do.

I just don't get the internal logic of winning by 2 only on a final set. The reasoning seems to be that you can't decide a match on a tie break. But if the winner of a match has won a tie break in sets 1, 2, 3 or 4, then the match has already been decided by tie break!

Tie breaks as a concept are either good enough for all sets or they're not good enough for any.

Riskysports wrote:Sue barker
Sue Barker interviewing people after a match on court
Sue Barker thinking herself so funny and laughing at her own jokes
Sue Barker interviewing through her 'one sided coloured glasses'
Sue Barker in a question of Sport
Sue Barker

: 

Funny, how long matches and gruelling points are loved by almost all of the fans who give standing O's for the performance but the purists on here deem them to be a negative. This must be another one of the evils in the world of tennis like tennis players who are too fit and should be fatter like Dave Nalbandian therefore easier for Roger to beat.

I love 100 shot rallies - doesn't everyone? The longer the better - can you imagine what a crowd pleaser a 200 shot rally would be?

Has no-one mentioned Leif Shiraz yet?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I love 100 shot rallies - doesn't everyone? The longer the better - can you imagine what a crowd pleaser a 200 shot rally would be?

Here is a little Christmas present for you then   I haven't watched it myself and I believe even those present started checking e-mails and playing angry birds or that fruit chopping game after the first 4 shots... but rumor is that there were well over 100 "shots".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVovELJiBIs

Yes please newballs put Leif in there along with his chum Petchy.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I love 100 shot rallies - doesn't everyone? The longer the better - can you imagine what a crowd pleaser a 200 shot rally would be?

Here is a little Christmas present for you then   I haven't watched it myself and I believe even those present started checking e-mails and playing angry birds or that fruit chopping game after the first 4 shots... but rumor is that there were well over 100 "shots".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVovELJiBIs

Yes please newballs put Leif in there along with his chum Petchy.

That's a terminally boring point - you don't want to watch it HE. No real attacking shots and it ended on an unforced error. Awful stuff.

^ Honestly some people are so ungrateful! OK I'm feeling generous so I will let you loan this one instead. It's just a loan though as I want it back. I may watch this one again myself   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdjNghcCNPU

a while back a 606 poster said this was what rallying was all about, and was brilliant stuff.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZZMuXBr_Hk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaZZMuXBr_Hk

I thought he joking, but the luddites might appreciate this as the pinnacle of rallying, much like the Ford T-model is the greatest mechanical engineering achievement in history

hawkeye wrote:^ Honestly some people are so ungrateful! OK I'm feeling generous so I will let you loan this one instead. It's just a loan though as I want it back. I may watch this one again myself   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdjNghcCNPU

It's not very exciting though is it - most shots are just about getting in play - did either of them really go for a winner at any point. Not the sort of thing I enjoy, that's all. At least 45 of those 54 shots were run of the mill stuff. If it had been a 20 shot rally with 10 great shots, then fair enough, but the ratio of ordinary-to-good makes it a pretty dull spectacle overall.

this point for me had more attempts to end the rally sooner by going for a winner. (Murray vs djoko aus '11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bosnckZ08Y )
Still not my cup of tea but imo better than those two previous ones.

Yes... and the T-model is the epitome of engineering

KR, I assume you like 54-shot rallies? I can only apologise for being such a dinosaur.

I don't particularly like it... I like being entertained. Watching Tsonga serve lights out can be as exciting as seeing a Nadal scramble. In fact givent th! choice, Id pick the former... I just think modern rallying is unfairly criticized... Much like many criticize the Ford Mustang while paying millions for a T-model....

Not so much modern rallies as long rallies - that Borg-Vilas link above is just as bad.
In fact, I pretty much stopped watching clay court tennis for several years (except Henman or Agassi matches) until Rafa came along - his game seemed perfectly suited to making clay court tennis watchable again.

Room 101 contenders....

1/ anyone over the age of 31
2/ anyone whose name begins with Roger or Victor
3/ Definitely net lets on serve
4/ anyone grunting or shrieking over 90db's (Sharapova has had her screams recorded at up to 105 dB.)
5/ towel dabbing instead of proper wiping (yes andy, I mean you!)
6/ shirt ripping
7/ stupid court colours
8/ tram lines omitted from court design
9/ pernickety line judges, esp foot faulters
10/ redundant umpires who've forgotten rule book of fair play
11/ anyone with Federer or Hanescu as a surname
12/ anyone who beats Murray in a final

.....and last but not least, the guy who lost Andrew Castles muzzle and the techie who doesnt understand the mute button when Andrew Castle talks during points/rallies.