Week 19 - ITF $10K - Antalya, Turkey Hard

Peter too · Tennis legend

RE: Week 19 - ITF $10K - Antalya, Turkey Hard

blob · All-time great

Oh well. The point is a good achievement considering, and perhaps Natasha might soon repeat the feat a couple of times and appear on Steven's table.
Let's hope so.

blob · All-time great

Jess may have suffered a heavy straight sets defeat in the singles against Gabueva, but in the doubles it's a different story against the same player, as her team take the first set convincingly.
Jess & Seda 6-1

blob · All-time great

Oh yes! Revenge is sweet.

Jess & Seda twice recover from a break down in the second set to send the top seeds tumbling.

QF: Jessica REN/Seda ARANTEKIN (GBR/TUR) defeated Angelina GABUEVA/Darya LEBESHEVA (RUS/BLR) [1] 6-1 6-4

SF: Jessica REN/Seda ARANTEKIN (GBR/TUR) vs. Shakhlo SAIDOVA/Anna SHKUDUN (RUS/UKR) [4]

blob · All-time great

Jess' Semi has just begun, with a slow start for our interest: 0-2*

blob · All-time great

Jess & Seda save a set point to tie it up at 5-5*

blob · All-time great

Had three chances to break for 6-5 but couldn't make one, and then lost the deuce point in game 12, and with it the set.
5-7

indiana · Tennis legend

Bah to deuce points in doubles !

blob · All-time great

Jess will agree with Indiana today, as twice the deuce point loses them the set, and deny her the chance for consecutive titles following her win last week.

SF: Jessica REN/Seda ARANTEKIN (GBR/TUR) lost to Shakhlo SAIDOVA/Anna SHKUDUN (RUS/UKR) [4] 5-7 4-6

indiana · Tennis legend

I do wonder what professional tennis players in general think about these "next one's the winner" points. Personally, I love the normal tennis scoring system and these points are a bit anathema to me.

Maybe just me, but I am actually less fussed about MTBs.

To me there are definite advantages about err advantages !

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Statistically, the 'next one's the winner' points favour the weaker team.

Figures back it up (I've seen the chart but can't quite remember the exact percentage) but it stands to reason too - there's more chance of 'fluke' in one single point than there is in two consecutive points, where the stronger team will probably win.

The players that I've spoken to don't mind it - what they hate is the change, i.e. now it's been implemented and been around for a bit, they're all happy. When it came in, they were all moaning. The same goes for the super tie-break and the same, I believe, for the original normal tie-break.

One of the important things is to make it uniform and consistent. Lots of domestic federations use it in some domestic tournaments and championships and not others. It can become very confusing. I've even seen chair umpires unsure.

Peter too · Tennis legend

I think the present system of "instant results" takes most of the tension and hence most of the entertainment value out of the match. I imagine this new system is American as they only seem interested in "the result". As someone used to watching cricket matches where one team will bat for a day to salvage a draw I get a lot of enjoyment from watching drawn out deuce matches, with the advantage switching back an forth between the two players.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I believe that it was the TV companies that were the force behind the introduction of the no-ad point (it might have been the US tv companies but may well have been the European ones too). It was the same rationale as the introduction of the super tie-break instead of a third set. This only applies (internationally) to doubles matches.

The problem was that doubles was taking too long, and unpredictably long too. This means that scheduling was very difficult. Viewers tuned in to see singles matches only to find that some doubles match had just started the third set and the court wouldn't be free for another hour.

The vast majority of the TV tennis and their financial benefits hang on the singles and so it was in everyone's interest (TV companies, federations, worldwide bodies) to try and keep them happy.