WTA 1000 ATP M1000 Miami 3/19 - 3/31 2024

[ashkor87]

Pegula was very impressive. She has great footwork, never gets wrong-footed, or off-balance...these are all very useful traits. Alexandrova will be tough, but I would say 50-50 as of now ...very happy to see Collins doing well in her last season....

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Musetti's coach was talking to him the entire match and TC let us hear him. Not that it mattered because of course they were speaking Italian. And not that it affected the outcome of the match. Carlos won easily 3&3

[ti-amie]

Wed, 27 March, 2024 (Day 10)

Stadium
Starts at 1:00 pm

C. Garcia (23) Vs D. Collins
Not Before 3:00 pm
T. Machac Vs (2) J. Sinner
Not Before 7:00 PM
E. Alexandrova (14) Vs J. Pegula (5)
Not Before 8:30 pm
N. Jarry (22) Vs (3) D. Medvedev

Grandstand
Starts at 1:00 pm

M. Granollers/H. Zeballos (4) Vs L. Glasspool/J. Rojer
Not Before 3:00 pm
M. Melo/E. Roger-Vasselin Or C. Eubanks/B. Shelton Vs (2) I. Dodig/A. Krajicek
Followed By
A. Krueger/S. Stephens (WC) Vs (2) G. Dabrowski/E. Routliffe
After Suitable Rest
E. Alexandrova/I. Khromacheva (OSE) Vs (OSE) S. Errani/J. Paolini

[meganfernandez]

Hubie threw a racket! Wow, never thought I'd see him boil over. His foot hit the bottom of the net while sliding for a ball in the third-set tiebreak. He looked down when it touched, so I'm surprised he was mad at the chair for calling it. We couldn't see if the ball was already dead, but probably not. He didn't seem to be arguing whether he touched before or after the point was dead. And he has to know he touched the net.

I've always thought it was a silly rule, something that (in most cases) has no effect on the playability of the ball and confers no advantage on the player.

Same as when a live ball touches a player standing out of bounds before it hits the ground. I hate that the player loses the point. I've seen it happen where the player was running to cover the open court, the opponent shanked the ball so it went right to them, and the player couldn't contort their body fast enough to get out of the way. But they were standing several feet out, so the ball was several feet out while still in the air. In no way is it just that the player lost the point. It's so obvious. Patently unfair. And the rules can get that right.

[ashkor87]

Rybakina doesn't seem at her best yet..making heavy weather of every match...wouldn't be surprised if Vika knocks her off. ..

[ashkor87]

Musetti's coach was talking to him the entire match and TC let us hear him. Not that it mattered because of course they were speaking Italian. And not that it affected the outcome of the match. Carlos won easily 3&3

Is it really a good idea to keep talking to your player? My experience , very limited, of shouting advice to my son when he played, only confused and irritated him...

[ponchi101]

Hubie threw a racket! Wow, never thought I'd see him boil over. His foot hit the bottom of the net while sliding for a ball in the third-set tiebreak. He looked down when it touched, so I'm surprised he was mad at the chair for calling it. We couldn't see if the ball was already dead, but probably not. He didn't seem to be arguing whether he touched before or after the point was dead. And he has to know he touched the net.

I've always thought it was a silly rule, something that (in most cases) has no effect on the playability of the ball and confers no advantage on the player.

Same as when a live ball touches a player standing out of bounds before it hits the ground. I hate that the player loses the point. I've seen it happen where the player was running to cover the open court, the opponent shanked the ball so it went right to them, and the player couldn't contort their body fast enough to get out of the way. But they were standing several feet out, so the ball was several feet out while still in the air. In no way is it just that the player lost the point. It's so obvious. Patently unfair. And the rules can get that right.

Neither rule is dumb. They have logical reasons behind them.
Imagine that you are playing doubles and you can touch the net. Well, nothing stops YOUR partner from stepping on the net and making it a little bit lower for your stroke.
Or.
You run into the net, and bring it down (accidentally). But, if you are allowed to touch the net, that would be a hindrance, and a point replay, when in reality, your opponent was not at fault.
Or.
You are very close to the net and ready for a volley. If you can touch the net, how about a little bringing it down with your non-racquet hand?

About being hit by the ball outside the lines. Same thing. If you are standing several feet out, sure, that is clear. But what if you are standing ON the line? The ball hit your foot, and you were right there? What is the call? Was the ball landing in or out? Well, it hit you, so you really can't tell. So, better make a rule that ensures that the grey areas are not there.
The rules of tennis are designed to make sure that grey areas are not there to be interpreted by the chair. So, it is always fair for both players.

[meganfernandez]

Hubie threw a racket! Wow, never thought I'd see him boil over. His foot hit the bottom of the net while sliding for a ball in the third-set tiebreak. He looked down when it touched, so I'm surprised he was mad at the chair for calling it. We couldn't see if the ball was already dead, but probably not. He didn't seem to be arguing whether he touched before or after the point was dead. And he has to know he touched the net.

I've always thought it was a silly rule, something that (in most cases) has no effect on the playability of the ball and confers no advantage on the player.

Same as when a live ball touches a player standing out of bounds before it hits the ground. I hate that the player loses the point. I've seen it happen where the player was running to cover the open court, the opponent shanked the ball so it went right to them, and the player couldn't contort their body fast enough to get out of the way. But they were standing several feet out, so the ball was several feet out while still in the air. In no way is it just that the player lost the point. It's so obvious. Patently unfair. And the rules can get that right.

Neither rule is dumb. They have logical reasons behind them.
Imagine that you are playing doubles and you can touch the net. Well, nothing stops YOUR partner from stepping on the net and making it a little bit lower for your stroke.
Or.
You run into the net, and bring it down (accidentally). But, if you are allowed to touch the net, that would be a hindrance, and a point replay, when in reality, your opponent was not at fault.
Or.
You are very close to the net and ready for a volley. If you can touch the net, how about a little bringing it down with your non-racquet hand?

About being hit by the ball outside the lines. Same thing. If you are standing several feet out, sure, that is clear. But what if you are standing ON the line? The ball hit your foot, and you were right there? What is the call? Was the ball landing in or out? Well, it hit you, so you really can't tell. So, better make a rule that ensures that the grey areas are not there.
The rules of tennis are designed to make sure that grey areas are not there to be interpreted by the chair. So, it is always fair for both players.

Most if not all of those situations you describe, or could imagine, can be handled with hindrance calls (like someone pulling down the net) and the umpire's subjectivity + video replay (the player was actually on the line when the ball hit her foot, so it's in). We accept subjectivity in sports calls. Can't eradicate it. I don't think there should be a broad rule to guard against extremely unlikely scenarios if the rule then produces patently unfair situations when there's a different remedy available. (Don't' get me started on let serves.)

We lived with the most subjective rule of all - did any part of the ball touch the line or not - for over 100 years. We can get a lot closer to fairness than we are right now. Right now these rules are far too broad and produce more unfairness than fairness.

[mick1303]

And Marozsan beats another top 10 opponent. It brings his record against top 10 to 4-1.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Christopher Clarey
@christophclarey
Photo of the Day

Tomas Machac serves in #Miami

Al Bello

[ashkor87]

Alexandrova doing well..Pegula is a totally different kind of player from Swiatek...no soft serves to attack. Collins next..I would bet on Collins in this match-up, much as I love Alexandrova...I would love to see Collins win this tournament...would be a fitting capstone to a fine career...!

[ti-amie]

Thu, 28 March, 2024 (Day 11)

Stadium
Starts at 1:00 pm

A. Zverev (4) Vs F. Marozsan
Not Before 3:00 PM
E. Rybakina (4) Vs V. Azarenka (27)
Not Before 7:00 pm
C. Alcaraz (1) Vs (11) G. Dimitrov
Not Before 8:30 PM
E. Alexandrova (14) Vs D. Collins

Grandstand
Starts at 1:00 pm

R. Bopanna/M. Ebden (1) Vs (4) M. Granollers/H. Zeballos
Followed By
K. Krawietz/T. Puetz (7) Vs (2) I. Dodig/A. Krajicek

[ti-amie]

What a grueling match that was between Pegula and Alexandrova. It was another match where I think the loser won more points than the winner.