Week 2 - ITF (W25) - Daytona Beach FL, USA - Clay

indiana · Tennis legend

Week 2 - ITF (W25) - Daytona Beach FL, USA - Clay

indiana · Tennis legend

QF: Amanda CARRERAS (GBR) 352 lost to Gabriela TALABA (ROU) 301 (CH:266 Sept 19) by 6-3 7-5

Michael D · All-time great

indiana wrote:
QF: Amanda CARRERAS (GBR) 352 lost to Gabriela TALABA (ROU) 301 (CH:266 Sept 19) by 6-3 7-5

Arggh yes that 2nd set was so close, and after being 5-3 up too... Still it's good to see Mandy starting the year at this level and in the US, which signals good ambition on her part. And two wins puts a useful +8 pts in the bank for her. She is back next week for more in Florida, though this time she may have to go through qualifying as well.

Strongbow · All-time great

3-6 5-7 cry Damn and blast! cry

Know it's a duplicate

Michael D · All-time great

Strongbow wrote:
3-6 5-7 Damn and blast!
Know it's a duplicate

Haha yes, it isn't actually since Indy actually gave Mandy the win. wink

indiana · Tennis legend

Michael D wrote:
Strongbow wrote:
3-6 5-7 Damn and blast!
Know it's a duplicate
Haha yes, it isn't actually since Indy actually gave Mandy the win.

No he didn't

He just put the result scoreline the way round he and some others prefer. The key part was "lost to".

Michael D · All-time great

indiana wrote:
Michael D wrote:
Strongbow wrote:
3-6 5-7 Damn and blast!
Know it's a duplicate
Haha yes, it isn't actually since Indy actually gave Mandy the win.
No he didn't
He just put the result scoreline the way round he and some others prefer. The key part was "lost to".

Hmm but I don't really understand why you would show the scores this way, given the propensity to confuse Indy? ... It doesn't fit with any other convention for showing the scores.. I know CD does it at times too... and it's very confusing to show the scores as though the player had won.. even with the 'lost to'. It means if its 3 sets, the only set u show as the winning player having 'won', is the set they actually lost?

-- Edited by Michael D on Saturday 18th of January 2020 05:32:48 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

It's the way the scores have to be entered in official play sheets and online for tournaments.

It's the normal convention for all administration.

And also ties in with other sports.

As before, if Liverpool lose 1-nil, you don't say "Liverpool lost nil-1"

That said, I don't mind people doing it the other way. And I sometimes do too, just for variety and because I know some people like it.

indiana · Tennis legend

To me it was natural when I started here and, certainly, as CD says, tieing in with other sports if you were talking about a particular player or team losing by some score.

Also back then Steven and I would guess the majority of people posting results did it that way. SC, our results Queen, and increasingly others, don't and it has been queried before but ultimately each have just carried on as before.

What I admit it doesn't tie in with is our live scoring where in this forum we put the Brit, or particqular player of interest's, score first. That though is because it is convenient shorthand, and when just giving a score an appropriate convention. But for full results I revert to what I have alwsys felt the more natural.

Of course, no confusion at all if we start results with the winner but I prefer, if not always ( eg. when copy/pasting ) to start with the Brit and then the essential words are "beat" or "lost to". If a retirement I would emphasise which score was to who.

Sorry if it is found to be confusing but I suspect, if so, only momentarily so probably just in the very minorly annoying category on both 'sides'.

I think we can cope as is

Michael D · All-time great

Coup Droit wrote:
It's the way the scores have to be entered in official play sheets and online for tournaments.

It's the normal convention for all administration.

And also ties in with other sports.

As before, if Liverpool lose 1-nil, you don't say "Liverpool lost nil-1"

That said, I don't mind people doing it the other way. And I sometimes do too, just for variety and because I know some people like it.

Hmm football is a tricky comparison CD because then home and away comes into it. You might say Liverpool lost 1-0 away, but at home the convention is the home side score comes first, so you would say Liverpool lost 0-1. Meaning that it's not a good comparison with tennis scores, where I have never seen an official site show two players names - and it is two players we show, not just the Brit player, and say that x lost to y 6-3 6-4. We don't, we say x lost to y 3-6 4-6.

And this is a reply to Indy too, of course everyone's entitled to show scores the way they want, but for me unless you were to show only the Brit player and say she lost 6-3 6-4 without mentioning the other player, it might just make sense, but even then it's not the way I'd show it wink

indiana · Tennis legend

Re football maybe a slight element of home and away affecting some but still I don't in general accept that Liverpool 0-1 example. Southampton supporters are surely very much more likely to say and write that they lost 3-2 to Wolves today even though they were at home. No?

To me it was Southampton 2 Wolves 3 and if you want to talk Southampton then they lost by 3-2. So again it is largely that sports comparison why for me, wih Mandy my initial subject, she lost by 6-3 7-5. Winning score first for me, and not through any unflinching convention, it's what folk actually say, and it just feels natural. Well it does to me

In tennis, not sure absolutely relevant but in the matches/activity sections for players, if a player was beaten by 6-3 4-6 6-3, the WTA shows L 6-3 4-6 6-3. The ATP and ITF show L 3-6 6-4 3-6 so no particular convention there.

-- Edited by indiana on Sunday 19th of January 2020 04:00:59 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Michael D wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
It's the way the scores have to be entered in official play sheets and online for tournaments.

It's the normal convention for all administration.

And also ties in with other sports.

As before, if Liverpool lose 1-nil, you don't say "Liverpool lost nil-1"

That said, I don't mind people doing it the other way. And I sometimes do too, just for variety and because I know some people like it.
Hmm football is a tricky comparison CD because then home and away comes into it. You might say Liverpool lost 1-0 away, but at home the convention is the home side score comes first, so you would say Liverpool lost 0-1. Meaning that it's not a good comparison with tennis scores, where I have never seen an official site show two players names - and it is two players we show, not just the Brit player, and say that x lost to y 6-3 6-4. We don't, we say x lost to y 3-6 4-6.
And this is a reply to Indy too, of course everyone's entitled to show scores the way they want, but for me unless you were to show only the Brit player and say she lost 6-3 6-4 without mentioning the other player, it might just make sense, but even then it's not the way I'd show it

But Michael, nobody says Liverpool lost nil-1. No matter if they were at home or away. You just don't say 'nil-one'.

However, I agree that football is not necessarily relevant to tennis smile

Peter too · Tennis legend

I think Steven and I adopted a standard for writing results about 13 years ago when we started copying results across. Since it was for British tennis it seemed reasonable to always put the British player's name first. It also seemed reasonable to always show the score from the British player's point of view, though to some extent that made the "beat/def" or "lost to"superfluous. I thought that creating a standard way of showing results should make it easier for people to read once they got used to it.

Michael D · All-time great

I'm happy to celebrate the difference for now, and acknowledge we all have different styles, but at least what we communicate I think is clear enough for all... wink

indiana · Tennis legend

Peter too wrote:
I think Steven and I adopted a standard for writing results about 13 years ago when we started copying results across. Since it was for British tennis it seemed reasonable to always put the British player's name first. It also seemed reasonable to always show the score from the British player's point of view, though to some extent that made the "beat/def" or "lost to"superfluous. I thought that creating a standard way of showing results should make it easier for people to read once they got used to it.

Steven does like to put the British player first. But he also shows the winning score as I do, winner's score first, was doing so when I joined early days, and occasionally made clear that was his own preference. So sorry, Peter, but rather than a standard way there was clearly early and continuing divergence between you and Steven for starters.

We've managed for 13 years, I reckon we can continue to manage. Though anyone can feel free to switch to our way