If by the reverse you mean the position where a match is started without the roof, and rain or bad light then impacts it, then yes it clearly wouldn't make any sense for them to refuse to close the roof, just because the match has begun (without the roof). That would completely render the existence of the roof as pointless. It than scenario, they have no choice, the roof gets closed. The match is turned from an outdoor match to an indoor match. But they do have a choice in relation to turning an indoor match into an outdoor match. That's is the difference. And as far as I've been aware, it's always been Wimbledon's protocol to avoid that. Once a match becomes indoor, it continues as indoor. If the rain has ceased in the meantime, they wait until that match finishes before opening the roof again, ahead of the next match starting. They have definitely had matches continued under the roof before, long after the rain has ceased. But, that said, I can't previously recall a situation where we've got to the 11pm cut-off time, and had to suspend the match. They've got very close to 11pm a few times, and I think once with Murray they even bent the rules and went beyond 11pm to get the match finished. So my original statement was based more on extrapolating Wimbledon's general stance of not opening the roof until a match has concluded, rather than experience of this exact scenario. As it happens, BBC said at the end that the players will get the choice. Which I think is the correct thing for Wimbledon to do So if they both want it open, then we have an outdoor match again. Of course, they might not agree... (And equally, they might not agree on whether to go before or after the women's final. Wimbledon giving them that choice does surprise me more - because what if they go before, and we have another long 5th set? The women's final could get delayed.)
I agree it makes more sense they go back on after the women’s final, except that that leaves the winner very little recovery time before the final on Sunday. So it has to be before the women’s final really. I also seem to remember a match (may have involved Murray but not sure) which started on Court 1 until it rained, and then was moved to Centre with the roof shut. That must have been difficult for the players, and a bit unfair on the spectators on Court 1!
They HAVE to change the rules on final set tiebreaks (especially at grass tournaments) the serving is too good from these players these days.
The US Open has a 5th set tiebreaker at 6-6 these days. I would argue 10-10 or 12-12 would be better, as Wimbledon is Wimbledon.
Maybe they could manufacture a ball that travels slower through the air like they did with the Javelin in athletics, it is too server biased atm.
Before they introduced the tie break matches could be interminable...see no reason not to introduce one in the final set as well...perhaps at 10-10 as suggested. The other changes being considered by the authorities at the moment are no lets....the idea being that hitting the net can favour either player....has apparently been tried at junior events. Also Wimbledon may abandon 5 set matches for men's doubles....as they are the last tournament to still use this format (apart from the Davis Cup). Understandable, but a shame as I think doubles are great.
Lennox Lewis must need some money, if this rematch is real. https://talksport.com/sport/boxing/398275/wbc-confirm-lennox-lewis-vitali-klitschko-rematch/
If he needs money , he's an idiot . That applies to ALL people who get rich and blow it all . Does my bloody head in
That's four men's matches in the last few days that will probably go down in, say, the top ten most memorable men's matches ever at Wimbledon.
Bit of a formality already this final. But on the bright side it’s looking like it’ll finish before the World Cup final starts.
A formality from the moment Anderson beat Federer, sadly. Anderson (or Isner) was never realistically going to be capable of beating Djokovic (or Nadal). Unlike Federer, who totally lost his forehand after cruising through the first set against Anderson and consequently racked up the unforced errors, gifting Anderson points for fun, Djokovic's game (and Nadal's) is built around getting the ball back and not committing the unforced errors. Meaning that Anderson will almost always lose the rallies. As a big Federer fan - and in general, a tennis fan wanting a good final - I was annoyed at Roger at not changing his game, once we realised he forehand was letting him down, and reverting to a more Djokovic-like performance. Fit or tired, the only slim chance Anderson ever had of winning this was getting 80%+ of first serves in. And even that might not have been enough.
Just watched the boys final. Jack Draper lost, but could have won. Lost 6-1 in first set as he looked overwhelmed, but then rallied to take the second set in a tie break. Kept breaking his opponent (world number one) in the final set but was unable to hold his own serve. Jack is very promising for the future...only aged 16. His opponent is full time, whereas he is still at school so nothing to be ashamed of.
Draper could be the next big thing for tennis in this country, Edmund is getting better but will hit his ceiling soon which will be around about the top 15 IMO.
Kyle is also somewhat unfortunate that clay seems to be his best surface. He probably won't be winning many (if any) clay court titles for at least a few years.
He will probably have the consolation of giving the Wimbledon champion a better match than his opponent in the final.
Gereint Thomas of Wales wins a brilliant stage 11 of the Tour on top of the Cormet de Roselend and takes the yellow journey, 1’25” ahead of Sky teammate Chris Froome. Fabulous stuff.
