Does anyone else think that Elena Dementieva looks somewhat similar to PFL?
(granted, most of the people around here prolly don't know what PFL looks like, other than the sunbathing pic. but anyway.....)
just a random thought I had while watching the Wimbledon semifinals.
Grizalltheway wrote:
Given their history, even if he doesn't, Fed is going to make him his bitch, again.
I don't know, I caught the replay of the Roddick v Murray match.... Roddick was making some pretty sick shots and a returns... Still, he is playing Fed and Roddick is 2-18 life time against Federer. My money is on Fed, but I want Roddick to win.
slycat wrote:One hell of a final. Andy is pissed but who can blame him?
I don't usually bother watching mens tennis, but I did tune in for the last half of the final set (I think it was 8-8 when I turned it on). I kind of figured Roddick was going to lose it eventually when Federer was winning his service games 60-love (or whatever they call 4 consecutive points) while Roddick's were going to deuce and the like.
slycat wrote:One hell of a final. Andy is pissed but who can blame him?
I don't usually bother watching mens tennis, but I did tune in for the last half of the final set (I think it was 8-8 when I turned it on). I kind of figured Roddick was going to lose it eventually when Federer was winning his service games 60-love (or whatever they call 4 consecutive points) while Roddick's were going to deuce and the like.
slycat wrote:One hell of a final. Andy is pissed but who can blame him?
I don't usually bother watching mens tennis, but I did tune in for the last half of the final set (I think it was 8-8 when I turned it on). I kind of figured Roddick was going to lose it eventually when Federer was winning his service games 60-love (or whatever they call 4 consecutive points) while Roddick's were going to deuce and the like.
Still, one heck of a final.
Yeah, but that's how it had been most of the match... the first game Roddick had his serve broken was the game that won Federer his 15th grand slam tournament. It was inevitable that Roddick would be broken, but it was also possible that Roddick could make lightening strike three times and break Federer for the third time. I felt real bad for Roddick, he wanted/wants it real bad and outplayed Federer most of the match. Obviously, wanting to win isn't enough. Roddick could have been up 2 sets to none had Federer not played out of his mind during the second set tie break. This is a match that could have easily gone Roddick's way, and I think it's going to be tough for him to live with, as Federer exclaimed during his speech after the match. It's a tough loss for Roddick, if Nadal comes back healthy and the current talent level among players is maintained... I don't know if Roddick will ever have as good of a chance to win as he did yesterday.
JayJ79 wrote:I don't usually bother watching mens tennis, but I did tune in for the last half of the final set (I think it was 8-8 when I turned it on). I kind of figured Roddick was going to lose it eventually when Federer was winning his service games 60-love (or whatever they call 4 consecutive points) while Roddick's were going to deuce and the like.
I guess you don't watch much tennis, period.
I admit, I've never actually heard that term used. But then, I haven't heard ANY term used to describe the number of points needed to win a game of tennis. But if the first point is called 15, the second called 30, and the third called 40, I would guess that that fourth point would be 60, even if it is rarely ever called that.
Grizalltheway wrote:
I guess you don't watch much tennis, period.
I admit, I've never actually heard that term used. But then, I haven't heard ANY term used to describe the number of points needed to win a game of tennis. But if the first point is called 15, the second called 30, and the third called 40, I would guess that that fourth point would be 60, even if it is rarely ever called that.
After 40, either one player wins and it's "game", or it goes to 40-40, more commonly deuce.
JayJ79 wrote:
I admit, I've never actually heard that term used. But then, I haven't heard ANY term used to describe the number of points needed to win a game of tennis. But if the first point is called 15, the second called 30, and the third called 40, I would guess that that fourth point would be 60, even if it is rarely ever called that.
After 40, either one player wins and it's "game", or it goes to 40-40, more commonly deuce.
yes, I know how it works. my only question was how to phrase the situation where a player won his service games 4 points to zero. "game - love" just doesn't sound right.
Grizalltheway wrote:
After 40, either one player wins and it's "game", or it goes to 40-40, more commonly deuce.
yes, I know how it works. my only question was how to phrase the situation where a player won his service games 4 points to zero. "game - love" just doesn't sound right.
The terminology is "won at love" it may not sound right but it is. Regardless of sound, there is no 60 and I'm not even sure why that would be the progression you came up with. 15-30 is +15 30 - 40 is +10 that would not lend itself to 60. MAYBE 45, but definately NOT 60
JayJ79 wrote:
yes, I know how it works. my only question was how to phrase the situation where a player won his service games 4 points to zero. "game - love" just doesn't sound right.
The terminology is "won at love" it may not sound right but it is. Regardless of sound, there is no 60 and I'm not even sure why that would be the progression you came up with. 15-30 is +15 30 - 40 is +10 that would not lend itself to 60. MAYBE 45, but definately NOT 60
The terminology is "won at love" it may not sound right but it is. Regardless of sound, there is no 60 and I'm not even sure why that would be the progression you came up with. 15-30 is +15 30 - 40 is +10 that would not lend itself to 60. MAYBE 45, but definately NOT 60
15-30-40-game (60)
or in the case of deuce
15-30-40- Advantage (50) - Game (60)
... at least that's what I've been told
I'll ask my pops when I get home. I can't imagine that is something I missed in my 20 years of tennis experience being raised by a 45 year tennis professional and being godson to another. With my parents owning and running a tennis shop for 30 years.... but hey.... weirder things have happened
I looked it up. That is a theory to the origins of the scoring.... I am almost 100% certain though, that it is not used, and has not been used in well over 100 years.
wideright82 wrote:I looked it up. That is a theory to the origins of the scoring.... I am almost 100% certain though, that it is not used, and has not been used in well over 100 years.
No, agree. It isn't currently used by anyone (other than me. haha).
But if a point value WAS assigned to "game", I'm convinced that it would be 60. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason to start with 15 and 30.
