Coup Droit wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

Ah CD you turncoat, I'd been noticing your buy-in to backward scores ie. rather than lose by 6-3 6-3

Or more likely you think there are rather more important matters than arguing the toss about lost by scores.

My own compromise is that, although I used to almost always put GB players first, I nowadays always put the winners first so that I always have scores that won't cause debate.

---

 I didn't think anyone noticed 

But yes, I have done it a bit more, it's true...........now, navel gazing, I wonder why..... no real reason, that I can think of (searches sub-conscious.....finds nothing.....maybe that's another story......)

Shall I go back, just to be difficult???? 

---

Don't you dare!  I'd noticed & I approved, but chose to say nothing in case it prompted you to revert to the abominable practice of putting the winning scores first, irrespective of whether a particular player/doubles pair had won or lost:  I always read the score quoted first (e.g. 6-1 6-3) as an indication that that the player(s) who achieved it won the match in question, not lost it.  That said, when I'm reporting a result, I aways put the winner's/s' name(s) first unless I'm quoting it in a narrative passage, but not in any sense as the compromise Indy says he's adopted.