A shimmering shower of sh*te scheduling...

Once more slam scheduling is shown to be completely asinine with many players affected by the rain but no Sunday play to catch up and ease the strain next week! Bear in mind 45 extra matches need to be rescheduled...!

Wawrinka will be the worst affected of the top players. His third-round match with Denis Istomin will now be played on Monday, leaving him the prospect of winning five matches in seven days if he is to take the title. Isner and Feliciano López are in the same boat. They'll need to potentially play 3 days on the run...ie. potentially 15 sets in 3 days.

But it gets even more idiotic. Wawrinka’s and Isner’s matches were cancelled at 5.12pm but the rain then cleared to allow all but one of the other third-round matches to be completed. They had 4 hours of play they could of used wisely to prioritise getting all main Bo5 matches done. Instead they put on doubles and Boy's/Girl's matches in their wisdom. So Isner's and Wawrinka's non-played matches will cause all sorts of knock-on problems next week. Murray/Djokovic will be in the quarters by end of Monday, Nadal/Federer won't have even played their 4th round matches. Crazy.

Speaking before the decision was made, Federer said he was glad to get his match in but knew he would be affected. “We’ll see what’s going to happen,” he said. “I might not play on Monday now. I don’t know what the situation is. You can’t choose, always. It is what it is and you have to adapt to it.”. Yes but you shouldn't have to Roger if the AELTC employed some common sense.

So Nadal and Federer will be playing 2 days running whilst Murray and other top halfer's continue to enjoy nice breaks, including Friday to Monday just gone. Slam scheduling never ceases to get my goat, and it's affecting the game's GOATs here...it should be simple, schedule wisely and play Sunday's when delays/pile-ups occur.

I would tend to agree with this.

We have a free day today so surely use it to clear up the backlog and allow the likes of Wawrinka, Cilic, Lopez and Isner the chance to have completed their 3rd Round matches by the end of the first week. As I understand it though Nadal and Federer have not been affected in any way as they would have played on Tuesday in any case but please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

All R4 matches would normally be played Monday with mens QFs on Wednesday. As it is, I would guess Nadal and Fed will have to play Tuesday and Wednesday.

Ah right in that case it is terrible scheduling what with them having a free day today.

Can't argue with any of this. They should first and foremost protect equality on both sides of the draw to maintain fair competition. What they've done is leave one side of the draw in a much better position.

Wimbledon always seem so reticent to open up the Sunday, in spite of the fact that it lets more 'Joe Public' through the gates and consequently you get a better atmosphere. Who can forget the Monday final between Rafter and Goran!

Cilic scheduled on court 18  

lydian wrote:

So Nadal and Federer will be playing 2 days running whilst Murray and other top halfer's continue to enjoy nice breaks, including Friday to Monday just gone. Slam scheduling never ceases to get my goat, and it's affecting the game's GOATs here...it should be simple, schedule wisely and play Sunday's when delays/pile-ups occur.

I do agree with your general gist but this part (isn't it Djokovic's half as he is top seeded) and besides an old phrase springs to mind $hit happens. I recall Murray in his first slam final had to play three days on the bounce (including final) and am sure there have been other instances the dice hasn't rolled in his favour. I think that is what Federer is alluding to in his comments that it is just the way things pan out sometimes and you get the good luck and you get the bad luck.

Well the AELTC need to look at maybe look at starting play earlier in the morning.

In a way like the FO they don't they have the benefits of night matches.

Hopefully by 2019 all this nonsense will be put to bed with another court with a roof on.

http://beforeitsnews.com/sports/2014/06/wimbledons-weakness-middle-sunday-madness-2571774.html

Also the Federer/Giraldo match finished not too late so I am surprised they didn't move one of the unstarted singles match on there - say Wawrinka and with lights under the roof there is a good chance that would have been completed.

You have to wonder how Dimitrov has gotten a billing on C1 ahead of Stan!!

I just saw the scheduling myself, it is a complete joke. I always maintained Wimbledon still organized things the best until now. This is exactly the kind of thing the middle Sunday is there for; to catch up on any matches affected by rain.

Nadal and Federer's side of the draw is now getting screwed, quite frankly, and as Lydian points out Wawrinka is really going to suffer. It really does boggle the mind when they clearly have the means and time to lessen the impact of rain but its as if they are going out of their way to exacerbate it.

They better dare not make it turn out like a Super Sunday scenario

Bringing middle Sunday into play at the last minute is a logistical nightmare. I refer you to Chris Gorringe's "Holding Court" chapter 1 for the problems faced in 1991. Last minute arrangement of line judges, ball girls/boys, approval from the council, local churches, private and public security, public transport, selling the tickets, ensuring the courts will withstand the extra day's play etc. - not easy to arrange at a day's notice.

The only realistic alternative would be to play on the middle Sunday each year, but is there much point sorting that out with a second roof on the way?

With grass though you can't have loads of matches on the main court, otherwise it will be ruined for the final. They should have had the Stanimal and Isner out on the other courts. As was said previously, getting the matches done was more important than whether they were televised or not.

This really sucks - http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule15.html

@TSJ... Remember what was done for Olympics. Between W and O, the entire playing surface was transplanted from it's original growing place. A second Roof is in the works, but it is strange not to be a priority. They can always use outer courts if necessary.

The current schedule is archaic and harkens to matches which would finish in 1-2 hours in 70-90s vs 3-5 hours now.

Bolleli v Nishikori was stopped at 3-3.

laverfan wrote:This really sucks - http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/schedule/schedule15.html

@TSJ... Remember what was done for Olympics. Between W and O, the entire playing surface was transplanted from it's original growing place. A second Roof is in the works, but it is strange not to be a priority. They can always use outer courts if necessary.

The current schedule is archaic and harkens to matches which would finish in 1-2 hours in 70-90s vs 3-5 hours now.

Bolleli v Nishikori was stopped at 3-3.

Was that what happened? I always wondered how they managed to get the courts back to full fitness. The only problem was that it was cut up pretty quickly.

yet despite murmurs of play on Sunday, it never happened. Play on Middle Sunday has only every happened three times – in 1991, 1997 and 2004 – and never since Centre Court got its roof.


http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2014-06-28/incomplete_matches.html

@JHM... The plans for MS can be made months in advance with necessary arrangements in place, rather than waiting till the last minute.

Danny_1982 wrote:Wimbledon always seem so reticent to open up the Sunday, in spite of the fact that it lets more 'Joe Public' through the gates and consequently you get a better atmosphere.

Why "in spite"?  "Better" atmosphere is subjective.  Presumably they like the atmosphere the way it usually is or else they would work to change it.

Had the privilege of being there for Middle Sunday 1997, and again for the final of 2001, which was a spectacle to behold. The atmosphere was just incredible indeed, as it allowed a group of people to enter, that would otherwise not have had the chance. They brought an energy to the court that was something I had never seen at Wimbledon, and was a pleasure in which to partake.

That said - Wimbledon Village - it's a relatively small area that is terribly congested during the tournament - week before, as well as the week itself, and that has to be"endured" by the local residents. As important as Wimbledon is, as a tournament, one also has to take the opinions and views of the residents into account, not just the "tennis players."

That said II - Wimbledon makes a HUGE HUGE profit and I am sure it could be worked out that, Wimbledon starts on the Sunday before "the" Monday; make a substantial "contribution" to the local budget - whether it be used for local based charities, infrastructure upgrades, public park improvement, etc., etc., With the tens of millions of profit that the tournament makes, something like a $2 million "donation" to Wimbledon (the village/community), would hardly be missed by the AELTC, and would make a substantial difference to what the local Council/community could do, for any area that needs some "help" in the village/area.

I agree wholeheartedly that the players should not "suffer" too much with backed up scheduling due to rain, but the residents' situation being "over run" for two to three weeks, should also not be ignored.

Playing that first "pre" Sunday, would start the tournament off with a full crowd (being a traditional non-working day for most), allow school kids in - let's reduce a ticket cost for under 12's on that day, perhaps same for OAP's - get a "viewing Public" in there to make a difference with a "full house." Paris was the more "forward thinking" Major to do this, starting a few years ago, and Wimbledon could really benefit by doing this as a "possible" scenario.

Each of the Majors want to keep their "individuality," which one could understand, but to do it at the expense of reasonable "sameness" of conditions to the players, is unacceptable. The US Television Open has finally put to past the "Super Saturday" which made for great viewing "stats," but at the expense of "sameness" for the players - one possibly playing a 3 set match earlier in the day, whilst another could play to 7-6 in 5th set in the 2nd semi, etc.,

Australia having the two men's semis on successive days - ridiculous - though I think that may also have ended now, hope so anyway. Ref: Nadal v Verdasco in 5 long sets one day later, than Fed's semi (str8 sets)...just crazy to put one player at such a disadvantage, having nothing to do with the players tennis ability...

Anyway, let's hope that whatever "solution" they find, that they do put their "thinking caps" on, as to reduce this scheduling situation that occurs with inclement weather. The players deserve a more "equal" footing from which to play their tournament, and likewise the residents deserve to have their "home village" benefit accordingly, should the inconvenience of doing this, increase.

Agree very much with the poster that noted, whilst Singles matches were cancelled, the had doubles and juniors playing - madness!

Roll on Monday/Tuesday with plenty of sunshine, and some fantastic tennis!

if all palyers retire from tournament organisers would react. so if players dont act united they get what they deserve

As Lydian says, Stan's section of the draw really gets the short end of the stick.  For everyone else I think it is at least borderline ok.  Top half of the draw will obviously be advantaged, but relative to say Federer or Rafa the advantage is not so huge.

Rafa and Fed would play Tuesday and Wednesday, but by the time they would meet the top half winner on Sunday they would have been back to a reasonably normal schedule - Tue-Wed-Fri-Sun.  So, unless their Tue/Wed matches are particularly draining, they could be ok.

For Stan and his section, the setup is horrible though - play Mon-Tue-Wed back-to-back; that is very rough, especially with the physical way tennis is played these days.

laverfan wrote:@JHM... The plans for MS can be made months in advance with necessary arrangements in place, rather than waiting till the last minute.

Yes, I did say they could always play middle Sunday regardless of any backlog, even if there had been no rain. Assuming they could get permission.

Murray and Djoko had the dodgy end of the stick for many a slam, so I'll show the same concern now, as I everyone else did then

banbrotam wrote:Murray and Djoko had the dodgy end of the stick for many a slam, so I'll show the same concern now, as I everyone else did then

Having read a couple of articles today I know what you mean. Some "journalists" only seem to care now that the golden boys are affected.

Exactly banbro. Like I said how about US Open 2008. Federer in first semi completed his match. Followed by Murray/Nadal semi which was suspended only halfway through. They had to come back the next day to complete the match and Murray then had no rest day before the final.

Also at Wimbledon 2012 Murray began the second week playing Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday unlike Roger so you see it is all swings and roundabouts.

I don't think my concern is so much for Nadal and Federer as they have so much experience at the Slams and really should be able to navigate their way through.

My sympathy is for the lower ranked guys trying to make it through a slam and seemingly face impossible odds.

There should be some form of rule in place for Middle Sunday along the lines of "if W is x matches behind schedule at end of Saturday then MS can be used". Logistics are easily solved by having the plan in place beforehand in case it is necessary.

On this occasion, the main error seems to have been telling Stan and Isner to pack their bags at 5pm, rather than making every effort to get those matches played on some court or other. Id have also moved Kei to centre court at 2 sets all to ensure that got finished.

I went to Wimbledon yesterday and was v baffled why they didn't put the Wawrinka Istomin match on Centre Court. Whilst it can be difficult to predict how long matches take, it was a reasonable assumption that the Federer v Giraldo match would be over quickly - it must have finished around 7 or so. Also, they could have got lots of people to fill the court from resales (I was on Court no. 1 and lots of people came in on the £5 resales tickets, even just to watch half an hour of the Lisicki v Ivanovic match), and if they didn't want to finish too late they could have given a cut off time of say 9:30pm which would have seen at least 3 sets get completed.

I like the idea of so called 'People's Sunday' but do understand the logistical challenges this poses so can see the reluctance to go with it. My biggest criticism was that they did not make full use of the roof yesterday (just 3 matches on there yesterday, including 1 best of 3 womens' singles is a real waste). Whilst I think Wimbledon has the best scheduling of all the 4 slam tournaments (compare to the complete mess of US Open scheduling), they got it wrong yesterday.

This is from the five-day marathon endured by Nadal and Djokovic in 2007.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/04/AR2007070401540.html

Wimbledon forecast tomorrow looking pretty dire. Could see Novak/Andy in the QF without Stan having finished R3...

MrInvisible wrote:I went to Wimbledon yesterday and was v baffled why they didn't put the Wawrinka Istomin match on Centre Court. Whilst it can be difficult to predict how long matches take, it was a reasonable assumption that the Federer v Giraldo match would be over quickly - it must have finished around 7 or so. Also, they could have got lots of people to fill the court from resales (I was on Court no. 1 and lots of people came in on the £5 resales tickets, even just to watch half an hour of the Lisicki v Ivanovic match), and if they didn't want to finish too late they could have given a cut off time of say 9:30pm which would have seen at least 3 sets get completed.

I like the idea of so called 'People's Sunday' but do understand the logistical challenges this poses so can see the reluctance to go with it. My biggest criticism was that they did not make full use of the roof yesterday (just 3 matches on there yesterday, including 1 best of 3 womens' singles is a real waste). Whilst I think Wimbledon has the best scheduling of all the 4 slam tournaments (compare to the complete mess of US Open scheduling), they got it wrong yesterday.

I fully agree. I was lucky enought to be on CC and I honestly thought there will be another match on CC after Federer because it was only 7.15 when he finished. I notice the club tend to try an start two matches simultaneously on different courts. However, I think it's not fair on the players who now have to play 5 rounds in the space of 7 days. This leaves some with an advantage over the others in terms of those who have played their round or those are fitter than others.

I also cannot understand why the Sunday is not used. Many people cannot necessarily take time off work of afford to do so during the week so the best chance is to come along on a weekend but you have just the one day, Saturday, which is hugely oversubscribed and shuts many people out as supply cannot meet demand. School are also reluctant to give kids time off school to go to Wimbledon so you have only middle Saturday and the finals weekend.

I recall a couple of years ago the AELTC deciding they would allow Murray and Baghdatis to play on pst the 11pm cut off point because they were hugely concerned he would have to come back on Monday and possibly play two rounds that day or have 3 consecutive days play. Fortunately Baggy tanked it and lost 4 games in ten minutes. I know allowing a match to run on is different to having to reorganise a day off but I cannot help feel if this had been Murray's section of the draw a more proactive approach would have been taken about MS.

Per chance Feds Fan would be the same AELTC who had Murray playing Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in 2012 whilst Roger had his feet up on the Tuesday? My point is you are seeing things that aren't even there.

As soon as play finally restarted on Saturday they should have shifted ALL the doubles and junior singles off court and put on as many main draw singles as they could.
That way we would not have had the prospect of Stan, say having to play Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
Even when there is no rain, the women get the worst of it at Wimbledon in the second week as they have to play Monday AND Tuesday, while the men (should) play with a day off in between their matches.
The CC roof also means that those not scheduled for Centre Court are always playing catch up. Chuck in the fact that the BBC tells Wimbledon when they want Murray to play (start teatime preferably and go into the evening) and it means that the scheduling for Wimbledon is INHERENTLY unfair right from the start - rain or no rain.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Per chance Feds Fan would be the same AELTC who had Murray playing Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in 2012 whilst Roger had his feet up on the Tuesday? My point is you are seeing things that aren't even there.

Point taken and no I am not seeing things that are not even there. You have one section of the draw at a huge disadvantage at the moment. We are not talking about a handful of matches that have been carried over. We are talking about a huge number of matches and I recall Murray being up a set and a break anyway so he already halfway there. This time you have matches that haven't yet started and a section of the draw who are an entire round behind. Big difference.

sirfredperry wrote:As soon as play finally restarted on Saturday they should have shifted ALL the doubles and junior singles off court and put on as many main draw singles as they could.
That way we would not have had the prospect of Stan, say having to play Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
Even when there is no rain, the women get the worst of it at Wimbledon in the second week as they have to play Monday AND Tuesday, while the men (should) play with a day off in between their matches.
The CC roof also means that those not scheduled for Centre Court are always playing catch up. Chuck in the fact that the BBC tells Wimbledon when they want Murray to play (start teatime preferably and go into the evening) and it means that the scheduling for Wimbledon is INHERENTLY unfair right from the start - rain or no rain.

Yes, I agree with you. I often think the women have the 4th round and QF back to back and some of those matches can be long. The BBC does dictate when certain players are put on court so what is perceived as the best match is put on a prime time slot. I recall McEnroe making a remark years ago when Henman was scheduled on court at a certain time.

I know it is easy as fans to sit here and go on about what should and should not be done. However, I think on Saturday more could have been done with the scheduling. CC could have had another 3.5 hours of play before the cut off time of 11pm. I think the junior matches could have been rearranged too to get as many of the main draw players on.The other thing is to resume a match the next day is less of an issue than to have to come back two days later to finish. I also cannot understand why Bouchard who is already in the 4th round being given the first match on CC when there are some who are waiting to play their 3rd round!

I have said earlier it is wrong but just to clarify things the matches that are yet to be completed are to no advantage to Murray.

FedsFan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Per chance Feds Fan would be the same AELTC  who had Murray playing Monday,  Tuesday and Wednesday in 2012 whilst Roger had his feet up on the Tuesday?  My point is you are seeing things that aren't even there.

Point taken and no I am not seeing things that are not even there. You have one section of the draw at  a huge disadvantage at the moment. We are not talking about a handful of matches that have been carried over. We are talking about a huge number of matches and I recall Murray being up a set and a break anyway so he already halfway there. This time you have matches that haven't yet started and a section of the draw who are an entire round behind. Big difference.

Whilst agreeing that Stan's position is far worse than Andy's was that year, Craig's point though was that it would have made no difference if Murray had been in the bottom half. I agree with that. If he was in the bottom half he would have undoubtably finished his match (as Rafa and Roger did) but I cant see a basis for saying the AELTC would suddenly have much more proactively dealt with Stan Isner etc. Andy would have, like Roger and Rafa now, have had a massive advantage over others in their half but a mild disadvantage over those in the top half.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I have said earlier it is wrong but just to clarify things the matches that are yet to be completed are to no advantage to Murray.

I never said the were to Murray's advantage. I merely said had the defending champion been in the bottom half of the draw and a round behind his greatest rivals for the title would the decisions taken have been the same?

FedsFan, the defending champion's side always starts first at Wimbledon, I believe and play on Centre first match. (Unlike at RG where they were happy to schedule their then 8x champion to have his opening match on the equivalent of No 1). I suspect that you're right, though in that if Murray had not been defending champion and in the bottom half, the decisions would have been the same.

I actually think the player this works out best for is Fed (providing there are no further rain delays today). He has a nice two day rest followed by what, on grass, should be a routine 3 setter against Tommy R tomorrow. In contrast, his potential QF opponents (Stan Isner Istomin or Lopez) who will in reality be his first real test will have played two full matches in 2 days before facing what is likely to be a very fresh Roger on Wednesday. After that, he will then be back on normal schedule and should have easily recovered for the SF.

If the question is would the AELTC have done more were it Fed or Rafa stuck out on whatever court Stan was due to play (as frankly they should have been given their opposition) then unfortunately I think the answer is that they would have seen it a great idea to stick them on CC late on a Saturday evening.

FedsFan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I have said earlier it is wrong but just to clarify things the matches that are yet to be completed are to no advantage to Murray.

I never said the were to Murray's advantage. I merely said had the defending champion been in the bottom half of the draw and a round behind his greatest rivals for the title would the decisions taken have been the same?

Yes decisions would have been the same. Wimbledon has always been pretty stuck in its ways so they wouldn't have played on Sunday just because two and a bit men's matches from Round Three were yet to be completed. They may just may have moved it to Centre court to follow Fed's match but only to pander to the paying public who paid to see Murray play on that day.

Well Nishikori has finished Bolelli off quickly, so no real damage to him. Raonic next.

Let's hope Isner doesn't decide to repeat his heroics of 2010 and hold up the tournament!!  

Although he's just fallen and may have hurt his back a bit, Wawrinka looks well in control, a set and break up against Istomin, who doesn't seem to have much to threaten the Swiss with. The most disadvantaged player would now appear to be whoever comes through the Isner v Lopez match - has the makings of a long match with v few breaks.

Whilst I think we've just about exhausted the scheduling topic now I do think the other people to have lost out on Saturday's early Centre Court finish were the fans. I was there on Saturday and people showed a lot of patience sticking around despite the rain and deserved another match on Centre Court (fill up the seats with resales tickets, and also others would have stayed on Henman Hill to watch on big screen). We could have therefore had Wawrinka v Istomin concluded and at least made a start on Lopez v Isner on an outer court by bumping a junior or doubles match off to make way.

All that said, I don't think it will make huge difference to outcome of the tournament - just very annoying that they're not making full use of Centre Court roof.

Now its raining again, Bouchard/Cornet will be in the quarter-final before Lisicki and Ivanovic finish 3rd round, and Isner/Lopez are a long way off finishing their serve-fest.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Bringing middle Sunday into play at the last minute is a logistical nightmare. I refer you to Chris Gorringe's "Holding Court" chapter 1 for the problems faced in 1991. Last minute arrangement of line judges, ball girls/boys, approval from the council, local churches, private and public security, public transport, selling the tickets, ensuring the courts will withstand the extra day's play etc. - not easy to arrange at a day's notice.

The only realistic alternative would be to play on the middle Sunday each year, but is there much point sorting that out with a second roof on the way?

May I ask what is the original reason behind the middle sunday break "tradition"? is that to ensure the grass has a "break" to recover from all the stamping and trampling?

Thank goodness the stanimal got his done quick. Very important for him to finish before the delay

whocares, I suspect that the original reason was religion related. When I was growing up (many moons ago), the Ladies final was on the Friday and the Mens was on Saturday so no Sunday play at all during The Championships. I'm pretty sure I got home from holiday in the middle of the Borg / Mac 4th set TB in 1980.