Talk About Tennis 2.0

As a former champion of, everywhere, should be present the trophy to the winners of next year's slams? Hand it to Novak, Rafa, Novak and first time winner (USO)?

The eyes. Glued to that ball.

I don't know why they are emphasizing FH winners either.

They are all over the place with their set and match statistics.
Sometimes they don't show the unforced errors at all.
They used to show total points won by both players. Lately, they don't show that, either.
It's so random that it's like whoever is doing the stats for a particular match just does whatever he/she feels like doing. There are no criteria.

It is as if tennis can't be analyzed. These stats are useless.
In every other sport, pretty soon all coaches will be replaced by an AI bot. In tennis, players and coaches will be given crystal balls, tarot cards and a Ouija board.

I like to see the total points won. That helps to see which player won the important points.
If, for example, the player who lost the match won more total points, one can logically conclude that the winner of the match won more of the critical points.

On the WTA telecast of the San Diego Final, Jill Craybas just made the excellent point that I've tried to make to people (with little success)...
As an airplane flew overhead (there is an airport near the tournament site), they talked about whether the planes are a distraction to the players...

Craybas said that the main problem with the planes flying low is that the sound of the planes drowns out the sound of the strings hitting the ball. She said that the sound of the the ball being struck "gives a lot of information about the shot" - how hard it's hit, what kind of spin, how much spin, etc. - and that the player not hitting the ball relies on this audible information.

I've tried to explain this to people, but many don't understand how important sound is.
This is why I don't like playing on courts that are near noise sources (like high vehicle traffic).
It's also why I hate watching tennis on TV with the sound off. As a spectator, as well, I want to hear the sound, as it relays a lot of important information.

Deuce wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 11:43 pm On the WTA telecast of the San Diego Final, Jill Craybas just made the excellent point that I've tried to make to people (with little success)...
As an airplane flew overhead (there is an airport near the tournament site), they talked about whether the planes are a distraction to the players...

Craybas said that the main problem with the planes flying low is that the sound of the planes drowns out the sound of the strings hitting the ball. She said that the sound of the the ball being struck "gives a lot of information about the shot" - how hard it's hit, what kind of spin, how much spin, etc. - and that the player not hitting the ball relies on this audible information.

I've tried to explain this to people, but many don't understand how important sound is.
This is why I don't like playing on courts that are near noise sources (like high vehicle traffic).
It's also why I hate watching tennis on TV with the sound off. As a spectator, as well, I want to hear the sound, as it relays a lot of important information.

This is true but asking anyone to sit through a match commentary by Jmac, Carillo or Arias is asking a lot.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:21 am ...

This is true but asking anyone to sit through a match commentary by Jmac, Carillo or Arias is asking a lot.

Will trade you the three of them for Clerc...

ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 12:21 am

Deuce wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 11:43 pm On the WTA telecast of the San Diego Final, Jill Craybas just made the excellent point that I've tried to make to people (with little success)...
As an airplane flew overhead (there is an airport near the tournament site), they talked about whether the planes are a distraction to the players...

Craybas said that the main problem with the planes flying low is that the sound of the planes drowns out the sound of the strings hitting the ball. She said that the sound of the the ball being struck "gives a lot of information about the shot" - how hard it's hit, what kind of spin, how much spin, etc. - and that the player not hitting the ball relies on this audible information.

I've tried to explain this to people, but many don't understand how important sound is.
This is why I don't like playing on courts that are near noise sources (like high vehicle traffic).
It's also why I hate watching tennis on TV with the sound off. As a spectator, as well, I want to hear the sound, as it relays a lot of important information.

This is true but asking anyone to sit through a match commentary by Jmac, Carillo or Arias is asking a lot.

Both McEnroes talk too much - because they love to hear themselves... and John talks far too much about himself. I still won't turn the sound off, though .

I don't mind Arias... and I quite like Carillo.

If Carillo is working by herself she is sometimes tolerable to me. I remember a tournament earlier this year where there was a great commentary team for a WTA match. When Carillo came on any commentary based on what was going on during the match disappeared and all she gave was anecdotes about random stuff.

Arias just drives me up the wall.

Hindrance?