It's worth noting that although the score now shows 6-4 5-7, all of the accompanying stats do not reflect the number of points and games that would have been required to fill that scoreline.
It doesn't even make sense if only one or other of the sets had been reported - presuming that there is some delay in the feed of the stats and that they are somehow independent from the score data, and how they are transmitted.
Just a caution about this score is all.
We'll see soon enough.
Perhaps Jess had a set point at 5-4 in the first which was then over-ruled or the umpire pressed the wrong button, mistakenly giving the set to Jess and then couldn't go back and correct it. When the set continued and Jess ended up losing 7-5 the only option was to enter the score in the set 2 column...
CD it's back to Jess losing. Josh's theory seems pretty plausible to me.
Yes. My comment had nothing to do with Josh's theory (perfectly plausible) but the score of the match. We'd always had Jess as losing but the score has shifted at least three times and it's just nice to see that she obviously came very close in the second to a big upset. The fact she didn't isn't a surprise - the surprise is that she was even in with a good shout.
This new score still doesn't tally to the stats. Also in live score, notice how the first set value for both players is in gold - where as usually, only the winner of each set has the gold number.
There are only 2744 score combinations possible for a 3 set match (not accounting for theoretically infinite TB scores, just 76 or 67). I guarantee one of those is right
QF: Simpson/Giovine (GBR/ITA) [2] defeated Akdemir/Yamamoto (TUR/JPN) 6-2 6-3 SF: Simpson/Giovine (GBR/ITA) [2] vs. Ye/You (CHN/CHN) The next opponents being pair of second-person plural personal pronouns, offers the chance for all sorts of Abbott & Costello, 'Who's on First' styled 'hilarity'.