Final score in 5th set: 70-68.
Meanwhile, in Vegas... Rosen and Goran play 26 straight hours. Must be something in the air.
To me, the insanely long Wimbledon match shows what happens when a sport's governing body let technology take over and don't tweak the rules to keep that all-important balance between offense and defense. In football, they often tweak the rules so either offense or defense doesn't dominate, and the game stays exciting. Same thing (to a lesser extent) in baseball and hockey. In AH, we are careful to strive for that balance which makes matches competitive and exciting. Imagine for example, if the goal were 1 or 2 inches wider. Great offenses would dominate and defenses would have little chance. But we faced that very situation in the early 80's with a manufacturer who favored the wide goals. And we prevailed.
I think tennis went astray when the high-tech oversize rackets started coming in. Before that, even on fast courts like Wimbledon, there weren't that many aces or unreturnable serves, and players were forced into back and forth rallies which demanded creativity and skill. John McEnroe epitomized the creative counterpuncher.
Today, the serves go 140 mph instead of 100, so it's much harder to break serve. Think about it. These guys each won 68 games in a row on their serves... and LOST 68 games in a row when the other guy served. Talk about an overwhelming advantage....
That's why the women's game today is more fun to watch: with the new rackets, and better training, they serve as hard (or slightly harder) as the men did back in the wood racket days. So the women's game still has volleys and rallies and lots of impromptu strategy.
Men's tennis would be a lot better if they scaled back the technology and provided more balance between offense and defense.
Mark
|
