Week 32 - Olympic Tennis Competition - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - Hard

christ · Futures level

RE: Week 32 - Olympic Tennis Competition - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - Hard

Mervatron · Masters Series Champion

How on earth did Kyle lose that?

Daniel does not do anything with a tennis ball. I have no idea how he's ranked anywhere near where he is.

christ · Futures level

Mervatron wrote:
How on earth did Kyle lose that?

Daniel does not do anything with a tennis ball. I have no idea how he's ranked anywhere near where he is.

Presumably because players contrive to lose against him. A useful skill to have.

Jaffa · Challenger level

I personally thought Daniel was quite good yesterday. Very, very solid player.

Ferrer doesn't do anything with a tennis ball and he's been top 10 for years. There's more than one way to skin a cat, or something like that!

indiana · Tennis legend

Been announced that Jamie & Jo will be in the mixed. GB have also put forward Andy & Heather but not yet clear whether they will qualify for the 16 pairs.

Edit : Ah, I see that posts on the mixed are mixed between the men's and women's threads and PaulM has said in the women's that as things stand Andy & Heather's combined ranking has not got them in.

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 9th of August 2016 03:52:41 PM

the addict · Tennis legend

The WTA just tweeted the 16 pairs, and Andy and Heather aren't there
2 Spanish, 2 French, 2 USA

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Stircrazy wrote:

L32: Juan Mónaco (ARG) WR 108 (CH = 10 in July 2012 - he's 32) vs (2) Andy Murray WR 2
The pair haven't met since the Shenzhen semi-final in 2014 (hard), when Andy won by 2-6 6-3 6-0. The actual head-to-head is 3-2 in Andy's favour, all three wins coming on hard courts.

First set in the bag by 6-3.

the addict · Tennis legend

Steven Retweeted
Russell Fuller @russellcfuller 14m14 minutes ago

Andy Murray & Heather Watson are second on the list of alternates, so will squeeze into the draw IF 2 pairs withdraw before end of 1st round

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

L32: (2) Andy Murray WR 2 defeated Juan Mónaco (ARG) WR 108 by 3 & 1

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Jaggy1876 wrote:
Tonight I've found myself watching swimming, table tennis and volleyball instead of tennis when I don't follow any of those Sports. Again says it all.

I'm 100 % with you, Jaggy.

Bows and arrows, horsey things, a bit of judo, and messing about in a boat stuff - have caught some really good events today - but no tennis.

However, well done, Andy and keep it up !

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

L16: Fabio Fognini (ITA) WR 40 (CH = 13 in March 2014) vs (2) Andy Murray WR 2

"Foggy" has just seen off Benoît Paire, the 16th seed, in three. The head-to-head is 2-2, with Andy beating him most recently in straight sets in Valencia (hard) in 2014. Foggy won their first ever encounter in the last 32 of the Rogers Cup (hard) as long ago as 2007!

daisy · County player

Wish the Olympic Results page made more sense:

Benoit Paire FRA bt Fabio Fognini ITA 6-4 4-6 6-7

According to them Paire was the winner but the scoreline points to Foggy on top!

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

daisy wrote:
Wish the Olympic Results page made more sense:

Benoit Paire FRA bt Fabio Fognini ITA 6-4 4-6 6-7
According to them Paire was the winner but the scoreline points to Foggy on top!

It makes perfect sense. When I look at the schedule & results page of the Olympic Tennis Event, to which there is a link on the ITF home page, there is a little green tick against Foggy's name & the mere fact that the score shows games won first indicates that Paire may have won the first set by 6-4, but that Foggy won the next two , & therefore the match, by 6-4 7-6(5). I can't read the scoreline you quote any other way! confuse You seem to be falling into the trap that ensnares so many people who report scores on this board, viz. that the winner's scores come first irrespective of whether he/she should be shown that way, which always confuses me at first glance! wink

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Stircrazy wrote:
daisy wrote:
Wish the Olympic Results page made more sense:

Benoit Paire FRA bt Fabio Fognini ITA 6-4 4-6 6-7
According to them Paire was the winner but the scoreline points to Foggy on top!
It makes perfect sense. When I look at the schedule & results page of the Olympic Tennis Event, to which there is a link on the ITF home page, there is a little green tick against Foggy's name & the mere fact that the score shows games won first indicates that Paire may have won the first set by 6-4, but that Foggy won the next two , & therefore the match, by 6-4 7-6(5). I can't read the scoreline you quote any other way! You seem to be falling into the trap that ensnares so many people who report scores on this board, viz. that the winner's scores come first irrespective of whether he/she should be shown that way, which always confuses me at first glance!

Understand your logic perfectly SC, except for the part that says

Benoit Paire FRA bt Fabio Fognini ITA

which is in complete contradiction to everything else.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
Stircrazy wrote:
daisy wrote:
Wish the Olympic Results page made more sense:

Benoit Paire FRA bt Fabio Fognini ITA 6-4 4-6 6-7
According to them Paire was the winner but the scoreline points to Foggy on top!
It makes perfect sense. When I look at the schedule & results page of the Olympic Tennis Event, to which there is a link on the ITF home page, there is a little green tick against Foggy's name & the mere fact that the score shows games won first indicates that Paire may have won the first set by 6-4, but that Foggy won the next two , & therefore the match, by 6-4 7-6(5). I can't read the scoreline you quote any other way! You seem to be falling into the trap that ensnares so many people who report scores on this board, viz. that the winner's scores come first irrespective of whether he/she should be shown that way, which always confuses me at first glance!
Understand your logic perfectly SC, except for the part that says
Benoit Paire FRA bt Fabio Fognini ITA
which is in complete contradiction to everything else.

Does it? We must be looking at different pages! More confuse confused than ever!