Isn't the whole representation arguement flawed anyway? Our gene pools are all likely to be pretty diluted and the fact that Andy Murray was born in Scotland, Boggo in Serbia etc it's pretty academic. Am I due a stirring sense of pride in my country (well extended British family anyway) when Murray beats Gasquet for example?

Representing GBR for no tangible reason would be due to some weirdly relaxed rules for any sport, in cricket it's back to your grandparents being Birtish or if you marry a Brit or live there for 7 years (I think it might have been reduced though), I guess this is the same in most sports, Athletics is obviously an exception.

Anyway, what does it matter? The only reason for it mattering to us is if we put an emphasis on the system they came through, or city or region that the player(s) live(d). The fact that they are British and so am I is irrelevant isn't it?

Might be opening the floodgates here, not sure.....

Seconded, Madeline. I think he makes some salient points, particularly when it comes to the rigidity of Wimbledon's protocol. Also, he's right about the roof. Why on earth wasn't it closed from the outset yesterday? Good points well made, I feel.

-- Edited by Gary Denton on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 12:00:31 PM

Returning to media coverage of Tennis. It is traditional that at this time of year newspapers send their "lead journalists" to Wimbledon. Thus you end up with utter tosh like this effort from Martin Samuel in the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2168433/Wimbledon-2012-Andy-Murray-face-David-Ferrer-Ed-Sheeran-inspiration--Martin-Samuel.html

Samuel is actually a pretty good journalist and a skilled writer but knows very little about tennis. So why does Britain's second biggest newspaper pay him a considerable amount of money to write such rubbish?

Madeline wrote:

---

I can't see very much wrong with that, RJA. Well, not when you compare it to the likes of the stuff put out by the Sun, Mirror etc.

---

 

1. Numerous pointless refrences to Ed Sheehan

2. Moaning about Andy having to play on court 1, a perfectly reasonable decision.

3. Moaning that play didn't start exactly on time.

4. The spurious claim that this is Andy's easiest every route to the final.

 

Being no worse than The Sun or or the Mirror is hardly praise.

Well, I hear what you say, but the media generally follows demand rather than trying to create demand.

And the problem you have is that most people care as much about Jonny Marray getting to the doubles quarters as they would if he got to the same stage of the UK Mud Wrestling Championships.

I love tennis, and I've really tried to get into doubles - but I just can't. I can't put my finger on why, but I just find it utterly uninteresting. And you only have to look at the empty stands and the minimal TV coverage to realise that most people share my view.

(My theory is that doubles, juniors, veterans, etc, matches at Wimbledon and other big events are just to create a buzz of tennis activity as one walks around the grounds.)

And for doubles players to get about 10% (each) of the prize money that singles players get strikes me as absurd. They get about 1% of the audience, and that should be reflected in the prize money. Except of course that then nobody would play doubles, and so there wouldn't be a buzz of activity ...

Well, as someone who likes watching doubles, I'm clearly the odd man out here. And I think you can create demand if you work at it -- look at the Bryans in the US. But my gripe isn't particularly with the lack of coverage of doubles. It's with the failure to celebrate a fantastic news story about a British player.

This one has everything. British player has a long, good career, but never makes spectacular breakthrough. Just before Wimbledon, he teams up with an old friend for a warm-up tournament. They do well. AELTC gives them a wildcard. In the first round, they face the 9th seeds, including Rafa Nadal's frequent doubles partner Marc Lopez. They oust them in a nailbiter five set match. Then they face Andy Murray's foe, Ivo Karlovic and partner. They oust them in straight sets. Next up are the 8th seeds, including Qureshi (who's well known). Another five set nailbiter. They're in the quarters. They're playing a team not that differently ranked. It's a battle of the underdogs, vying for a place in the semis and a shot at the final. As Murray and Ferrer duel on Centre Court, Marray/Nielsen and their foes duel on Court 3. They're winning by two sets to love -- then the momentum shifts. Their opponents win two sets. It's the fifth set, and they get a new wind. They break twice! They triumph! They're into the semis .... perhaps to face the Bryans for a spot in the final. They join Henman, Wade, Rusedski and the Murrays as members of the elite Last Eight Club!

If you can't make a story out of that, you shouldn't be a journalist. And it's such a great story .... full of interest, with such potential to inspire other players and potential players.

Sigh. I hope I read it somewhere.

Spectator wrote:

---

Well, as someone who likes watching doubles, I'm clearly the odd man out here. And I think you can create demand if you work at it -- look at the Bryans in the US. But my gripe isn't particularly with the lack of coverage of doubles. It's with the failure to celebrate a fantastic news story about a British player.

This one has everything. British player has a long, good career, but never makes spectacular breakthrough. Just before Wimbledon, he teams up with an old friend for a warm-up tournament. They do well. AELTC gives them a wildcard. In the first round, they face the 9th seeds, including Rafa Nadal's frequent doubles partner Marc Lopez. They oust them in a nailbiter five set match. Then they face Andy Murray's foe, Ivo Karlovic and partner. They oust them in straight sets. Next up are the 8th seeds, including Qureshi (who's well known). Another five set nailbiter. They're in the quarters. They're playing a team not that differently ranked. It's a battle of the underdogs, vying for a place in the semis and a shot at the final. As Murray and Ferrer duel on Centre Court, Marray/Nielsen and their foes duel on Court 3. They're winning by two sets to love -- then the momentum shifts. Their opponents win two sets. It's the fifth set, and they get a new wind. They break twice! They triumph! They're into the semis .... perhaps to face the Bryans for a spot in the final. They join Henman, Wade, Rusedski and the Murrays as members of the elite Last Eight Club!

If you can't make a story out of that, you shouldn't be a journalist. And it's such a great story .... full of interest, with such potential to inspire other players and potential players.

Sigh. I hope I read it somewhere.

---

 

Nope, you are not the odd man out. For most of the year I struggle to watch doubles, but only because the powers that be have ruined it. Doubles can be fantastically fun but the "No ad scoring" system used everywhere outside the grand slams destroys the drama and the tension that is so fundamental to tennis. Likewise playing a match tie break instead of a deciding set is a joke.

Fortunately at the Grand Slams the game is still played properly and at Wimbledon it is still played over 5 sets and that allows spectacles like we witnessed today. It was truly a brilliant match, Jonny Marray, a 31 year old journeymen who has made less that £300K in over a decade in the game, and Freddie Nielsen, at 28 playing only his second grand slam, were in the biggest match of their career. For the first three sets they enjoyed every moment and played some superb tennis, they took the first two sets but narrowly missed out in the third and then the tide turned. They were blown away in the fourth and frankly looked at of their depth. As the fifth set started that looked like they were beat, their ethusiastic smiles were long gone, they looked tired, down in the dumps and totally lacking belief. At *1-2 Marray was quickly reduced to 0-40 and defeat seemed inevitable. Remarkably however it wasn't the case. Marray dug deep and reeled off the next 5 points including a back hand volley at 15-40 that would have graced a Wimbledon final in the days that when serve and volley was the tactic of choice. In an instant everything had changed, Marray and Nielsen celebrated like they had won the match. All of a sudden they were once again energised and confident. They stormed to the next four games and won a match that had seemed certainly lost.

I would defy anyone who watched that match to say that it wasn't magnificent, that lacked either quality or drama. The people that could have sat on court and watched it don't know what they missed out on.