Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic
My gripe is celebrating such a low-quality match - the service returner only won 221 of 1,011 total points (though more than half of the points where there actually was a service return).
The Roddick/Federer match was riveting, and 16-14 with both players all over the court is a long, long way from 70-68 with two players unable to do much of anything other than serve.
|
Jim, I know you're not as dense as you're acting about this. You're a smart guy. Think about the sheer percentages involved in 2 players, skilled or NOT skilled managing to not screw up and lose 2 consecutive games of tennis. The odds that in a match this long neither man managed to lose 4 points out of 14 consecutive points at any point along the way.
Stamina, yes many sports require it, but it is still an amazing feat to play any game for 9 straight hours as they did on the second day.
Repetitive motion. You go out and serve 100 times. See just how much quality you have on any swing after that. These men served over a THOUSAND times and even so were sending the ball across the grass over 100 mph. Yes they only returned 23% of the serves, You see that as terrible return skills, but perhaps its just as much their excellence on the serve?
You complain that these players aren't very good, that the match was of terrible quality yet I see you compare them only to the players in the top 10 in the world. OF COURSE ITS LOWER QUALITY THAN THEM. Federer who you keep referring too is only the best player to EVER PLAY THE GAME. These two guys are in the top 100 players in the world. Perhaps you need to rethink you're expectations of a 1st round match.
You're constant derision of this event and its significance shows a real lack of understanding of the game of tennis, and professional athletics in general.