|
Post by janie on Jun 23, 2010 18:06:20 GMT -5
World War II was historic and record-setting, but that doesn't mean it was enjoyable to watch.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 23, 2010 18:26:06 GMT -5
ummmm..... LULZ. Yeah. I have no idea what else to say about this. I mean, obviously Mahut and IVOUSA were going to play a long third set, but this is just embarassing. I was wondering where you were with all the Isner / Mahut drama taking place. Embarrasing? If by embarrassing you mean a thrilling, historic and record setting match then I agree. And it ain't over yet. ;D Dude, I was working. And even if I wasn't, >100 games of a serve marathon? Pass. I'll catch the final points on youtube next Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 23, 2010 18:54:03 GMT -5
I just went to cnnsi to read some articles about this and simply cannot stop laughing.
I'll be rooting for The Lizard tomorrow, and continuing to laugh.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 23, 2010 18:57:15 GMT -5
World War II was historic and record-setting, but that doesn't mean it was enjoyable to watch. I mean, I like Ivo Isner and all, but I don't want to watch ANYTHING for ten damn hours. I'd never sit through "Shoah" in a cinema, you know?
|
|
|
Post by Iorix on Jun 23, 2010 18:57:30 GMT -5
Time for final-set TBs at all Slams, but ESPECIALLY Bimbledon. The end. What bothers me about this mugathon is that it will be used as an argument against final-set TBs for years to come. Just read calico's posts. Everyone joked about how one day we would have Karlovic vs some other big serving goon with no game at Wimbledon, and the 5th set would go on forever hohoho, but I don't believe anyone actually thought something like this would ever happen.
|
|
|
Post by Iorix on Jun 23, 2010 19:13:00 GMT -5
Time for final-set TBs at all Slams, but ESPECIALLY Bimbledon. The end. What bothers me about this mugathon is that it will be used as an argument against final-set TBs for years to come. Just read calico's posts.Everyone joked about how one day we would have Karlovic vs some other big serving goon with no game at Wimbledon, and the 5th set would go on forever hohoho, but I don't believe anyone actually thought something like this would ever happen. Or MTF. Such a bunch of knee-jerk conservative tards, all repeating that "no TB in the fifth set is what makes the Slams unique" mantra without actually thinking about it. What was "epic" about this? A laugh riot for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 23, 2010 19:16:22 GMT -5
I just thought about this and laughed some more. This is funnier than that time Federer's swing-and-a-miss on match point, and I didn't think tennis would ever be funnier than that.
That being said, I don't think this should be used as an argument for or against 5th set tie breakers in slams. This match is an anomaly; a hilarious anomaly, but an anomaly nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Calico on Jun 23, 2010 19:16:45 GMT -5
I was wondering where you were with all the Isner / Mahut drama taking place. Embarrasing? If by embarrassing you mean a thrilling, historic and record setting match then I agree. And it ain't over yet. ;D Dude, I was working. And even if I wasn't, >100 games of a serve marathon? Pass. I'll catch the final points on youtube next Tuesday. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by Edna Krabappel on Jun 23, 2010 19:16:21 GMT -5
On TF they're already using it as an argument against equal prize money.
|
|
|
Post by Calico on Jun 23, 2010 19:24:43 GMT -5
What bothers me about this mugathon is that it will be used as an argument against final-set TBs for years to come. Just read calico's posts.Everyone joked about how one day we would have Karlovic vs some other big serving goon with no game at Wimbledon, and the 5th set would go on forever hohoho, but I don't believe anyone actually thought something like this would ever happen. Or MTF. Such a bunch of knee-jerk conservative tards, all repeating that "no TB in the fifth set is what makes the Slams unique" mantra without actually thinking about it. What was "epic" about this? A laugh riot for all the wrong reasons. You're exactly right how those against final set tiebreaks in the grand slams will point out how great this is compared to a tiebreak in the final set of a grand slam match. Which is better is debatable. I do like the U.S. Open's final set tiebreak. But like Becca pointed out the Isner / Muhat match is an anomoly if not an oddity. I can only recall seeing a 20 - 18 final set match once and I believe Richard Krajicek won that match. 20 - 18 looks like an easy fifth set compared to 59 -59 and I think that's why so many people including my unbiased self are getting carried away with the history Isner and Muhat match. The question is now what does tennis historian Bud Collins think of the Isner / Mahut match?
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jun 23, 2010 19:25:38 GMT -5
It's not that much of an anomaly. 120 games is ridiculous, but there's usually a few matches every year that go 22+ games in the 5th set, and that is far too long for any sporting event.
Final set tiebreaks are necessary. The excitement of them is palpable. What's exciting about today? Nothing more than pointing and laughing at history taking place.
Of course, I'm strongly for the men only playing 3 sets in slams. Sports should be entertainment. I'm the biggest tennis fan there is and it's a challenge sitting through 5-setters.
|
|
|
Post by Iorix on Jun 23, 2010 19:30:42 GMT -5
It's not that much of an anomaly. 120 games is ridiculous, but there's usually a few matches every year that go 22+ games in the 5th set, and that is far too long for any sporting event. Final set tiebreaks are necessary. The excitement of them is palpable. What's exciting about today? Nothing more than pointing and laughing at history taking place. Yes, that's what I don't get about the knee-jerk "no TB in the fifth" crowd. It's like saying extra time at a football match should go on until one of the teams scored, even if it took 6 further hours to do so. Aren't TBs exciting, let alone a TB that will decide the who wins a lengthy match? This on the other hand was as boring as it gets. Of course, I'm strongly for the men only playing 3 sets in slams. Sports should be entertainment. I'm the biggest tennis fan there is and it's a challenge sitting through 5-setters. Idem in me.
|
|
|
Post by Iorix on Jun 23, 2010 19:33:46 GMT -5
Not to mention that, if tennis wants to keep getting live TV coverage, it should begin doing whatever is necessary to make the length of matches more predictable.
There's a reason why nobody even considers stopping the clock during interruptions of play at football matches.
|
|
|
Post by Edna Krabappel on Jun 23, 2010 19:44:22 GMT -5
Not to mention that, if tennis wants to keep getting live TV coverage, it should begin doing whatever is necessary to make the length of matches more predictable. It did work very well for volleyball indeed. I clearly remember what a pain it was to wait for a team to score a point on their serve and they go back and forth and back and forth until you drop dead of boredom. I do think the final set TB can be a bit of an anticlimax, especially if a player has stood his/her ground very well the entire set and then let the TB go with a couple of loose points (e.g. Jankovic vs Venus at USO '07). But then again, it's only their problem and it's certainly preferable to what happened today. Maybe there could be a compromise, for example, the TB could be introduced at 8-8 in the final set instead of 6-6 or something. I've also thought about the men playing the best of 3 at Slams. It sounds like a huge blasphemy (ZOMG!!!! Rafa vs Fed Wimbledon final the greatest match EVARRRR!!!!@~~!1), but really, how often is the quality of play on relatively high level throughout the 5 sets? There's usually at least one set of outrageous tanking somewhere in between. Even in that Bimbly final the first two sets were absolute snoozers.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 23, 2010 19:54:20 GMT -5
Baby step. How about best of 3 for DOUBLE NOC.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 23, 2010 20:23:38 GMT -5
Seriously, Bimbledon's obsession with men verges on the homosexual. NO OTHER TOURNAMENT WOULD EVEN THINK OF PLAYING FIVE-SET DNOC OR FINAL-ROUND QUALIES. Like...talk about killing yourself.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 23, 2010 21:22:56 GMT -5
It's not that much of an anomaly. 120 games is ridiculous, but there's usually a few matches every year that go 22+ games in the 5th set, and that is far too long for any sporting event. Final set tiebreaks are necessary. The excitement of them is palpable. What's exciting about today? Nothing more than pointing and laughing at history taking place. Yes, that's what I don't get about the knee-jerk "no TB in the fifth" crowd. It's like saying extra time at a football match should go on until one of the teams scored, even if it took 6 further hours to do so. Aren't TBs exciting, let alone a TB that will decide the who wins a lengthy match? This on the other hand was as boring as it gets. That's how they do it in the Stanley Cup Playoffs... and it's how it ought to be done. Can't imagine anything stupider than implementing a shootout in the Stanley Cup Finals...
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jun 23, 2010 22:34:28 GMT -5
I don't think hockey is an apt comparison. The shootout is different from the rest of the game. You're making a team sport turn individual. Tiebreaks are the same as the rest of the match. They're a fair conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 23, 2010 22:39:16 GMT -5
This match is the best argument ever for a fifth set tie-break, especially on grass when you have 2 good servers.
Now the schedule is a mess, and anyway, if a tennis match lasts 10 hours, something is very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Pamela Shriver on Jun 24, 2010 0:06:03 GMT -5
Why care.
When the two players with such style of play clash as such, this CAN happen. Obviously I don't think anyone could think it would occur to this extent, but who is it hurting? Yes, either one will likely be completely gutted for their 2R match, but here's the thing - for all that negativity surrounding tennis for the last few years (most of it obviously from the SEWTA side), this is something that is getting the non-tennis fans talking. Will they sit through a 10 hour match? No, obviously. Hell, I wouldn't. But it brings attention to the game, and both of these guys are going to be remembered (fondly) for this effort. If this starts happening on a tournament-by-tournament basis, then let's have the conversation about whether or not we change the rules. But for now, why not let them have their moment?
And go Johnny for the win.
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on Jun 24, 2010 0:24:36 GMT -5
I agree with the King, in terms of the attention - and respect - this generated from non-tennis fans, Johnny Mac was right in saying this is a tremendous advert for the sport. My Twitter feed was going nuts over it, and everyone who's emailed me since about 22-22 has mentioned it. Everyone knows that this is an anomaly and most matches aren't two goons serving at each other for 10 hours, but the knowledge that tennis player can and will go this distance is just...a huge athletic accomplishment. I think this match is good for the sport. So many people comparing Mahut and Isner positively to various World Cup teams.
That said, it's not a good match - though weirdly it got better as time passed - and they should definitely have 5th set TBs at Wimbledon, the only Slam where this can actually happen.
Re: five sets...I dunno. I can't remember the last time I sat through an entire five-setter that wasn't a final, most of the time you dip into it when the scoreboard gets exciting/at the end. But that's the great thing about tennis watching, you don't have to sit through entire matches, and coming into it for the 5th set can be pretty special. Unless it's a Slam final, where the occasion means that people want to see something epic. Best of 5 shouldn't be outlawed because of the five-setters, but because of the needlessly long three-setters and sloppy four-setters that don't have any reason to be longer than a 59-minutes SEWTA wipeout.
|
|
|
Post by Pamela Shriver on Jun 24, 2010 0:27:06 GMT -5
Quite frankly, it's ridiculous that all are quibbling over what we should do with this fifth set - where two men are literally putting all they have out on the court - when there are clearly far bigger issues in the game. We all joke about it, because of its hilarity, but really there are far bigger issues than these two guys giving it their all (in albeit a sloppy match):
1. SEWTA: You have part time athletes who can essentially choose at will when they will or will not show for a match. You've structured and then modified your tour rules around this. This is an issue.
Edit/addition: This has been brought up on WTAW, though I admit by a controversial poster: this is rare. Many other men wouldn't have kept this up. And I'm fairly sure NONE of the WTA players would have stuck it out half this long. I don't even know what Isner's seed is - twenty-something I believe. Do we see V. Azarenka playing her heart out like this? No. But that's for another conversation.
2. ATP: Your PR/marketing departments have obviously scored a victory over the WTA, though in this day and age this isn't really saying much. Roger is a fabulous player - the best of his generation, by far at the moment. Though I think this is running a similar parallel to Graf in her heyday on the WTA side (disagreement is bound to occur on this point). But, your only rival is continuously injured, inept on a "big-match" stage, or attacked (only WTA can match that one). You've got a relatively unmarketable (from a US standpoint), "cold" leader. Fix this. I'm not saying I know how, but I'm not paid $300K to figure such things out.
3. USTA: What are you doing. This only applies to us American posters, but really, what are you guys doing over there. You have funding and resources. The fact that once Roddick and Williamsx2 retire, that you have essentially nothing competitive is a very big issue.
I guess this is me being a dumb, emotional fan, but the fact that Oudin (for all the shit she gets), and Isner are your best hopes is very telling. They aren't the best we've ever seen, but they have a fucking love for the game. If Isner can stay out there for 10 hours to get to the second round of a slam, more power to him.
|
|
|
Post by lexpretend on Jun 24, 2010 0:51:10 GMT -5
Literally have to run out of the door now, but I think in terms of PR Roger is about the best leader of the game the ATP could hope to have, in terms of aesthetic and personality and professionalism. I don't think he's "cold", really. I admit that without Rafa, it would have palled, but...we had, and still have, Rafa, who is just as good a leader in all the same departments. If the Williams sisters and the Belgians had comported themselves throughout their careers like Roger and Rafa, I'd bet that SEWTA would be as strong as the ATP's been over the last few years. Sadly the only one of those to realise the value of professionalism was Venus, and she seemed to realise it just as her game fell off a cliff outside grass.
|
|
|
Post by leelee on Jun 24, 2010 1:02:13 GMT -5
It's an advertisement for the sport, I guess. Sports outlets everywhere are talking about it. But, will this make people watch tennis? I doubt it. I care because I think the tennis product needs to become much more fan friendly. The common complaint you'll get from general sports fans is that tennis is too repetitive and boring. This certainly ain't helping that. I concur that 5th set rules are very minor part of this, and I do STRONGLY respect what Ivo and Mahmut are doing out there, but it is a part of my contention.
Agreed. I don't think anyone can disagree with this. SEWTA has slowly eroded the one huge advantage they had over nearly all women's sports... people took them seriously. Once the current star power with the Williams and whatever crappy pretty girl of the month is, they're fucked. This is an entirely separate issue, though. And it's Lindsay's fault.
I don't think that's true about Roger. AFAIK, his stuff sells really well here in the States, too. He's popular enough. He's certainly not in the Lendl or pre-stabbed Seles apathetic range.
But, I do think that Roger and Rafa are portrayed as being too nice and classy. I'm bored every time they talk (other than laughing at Rafa's no?s). And I think it's cost Nole, who is an eccentric fellow, it's made him seem like a jerk when he really isn't. I don't know where I'm going here... maybe we need more of a rivalry, or just something to stir up the pot.
This is unavoidable. The rest of the world is catching up on resources. The days of Americans dominating the rankings from 1900-1999 are never happening again.
That was thought-provoking. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 24, 2010 5:36:53 GMT -5
The Bearded Lady and geeks are advertisements for the circus, too.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 24, 2010 5:42:35 GMT -5
I don't think hockey is an apt comparison. The shootout is different from the rest of the game. You're making a team sport turn individual. Tiebreaks are the same as the rest of the match. They're a fair conclusion. I brought up hockey in response to him bringing up football.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 24, 2010 5:49:50 GMT -5
I stood at Court 18 from 17-16 to the very end. Nearly 5 hours. I know I missed a lot of good stuff elsewhere because of waiting for a match-point that never came, but I absolutely had no choice.
Actually it was a good match because both players were amazing on the serve AND on the second shot, they hardly ever missed.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 24, 2010 17:30:02 GMT -5
Sounds like a great experience!
And screw anybody who says this is horrible for tennis. Yes, it's fucking hilarious, but today if the first time since Nadal bt Fed at Wimbledon that I heard absolute randoms discussing tennis. And they didn't know enough to realize that this was just totally hilarious, rather than awe inspiring. So, yeah. Bite me, fifth set tiebreak. 70-68 FTW!
|
|
|
Post by Pamela Shriver on Jun 24, 2010 21:16:24 GMT -5
Listening to local NY news this evening kinda proves my point: it was the lead story during the sports segment. Ans its intro from the anchor's desk: "the greatest tennis match of all time."
To Chloe's point - it's hilarious in a sense because clearly quality-wise, it was nowhere close. But this had a damn lot of people talking.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 24, 2010 21:35:52 GMT -5
There's no denying it attracted a lot of attention, and obviously it can't be bad for the sport, but it's just a temporary buzz. It's a sort of event that makes non tennis fans talk for a while, but that doesn't make people follow the sport.
I agree that there are obviously far more important issues, but it's hard to not discuss about it when this situation occurs. Fact is, Isner finished his first round match THURSDAY, so he has to play 3 days in a row, assuming there is no rain. For what? For 2 players holding serve on grass forever, and some random people "tweeting" about it for 24 hours. Not worth it.
|
|