c4countdown

So what's with the French Open Line Judges screaming like they do? It's really distracting but also kind of hilarious!

Jon O'Neill wrote:So what's with the French Open Line Judges screaming like they do? It's really distracting but also kind of hilarious!

Yeah it's annoying. Also, what's with the long announcement detailing each player's career history while they're warming up? Plus, half the court blows away when the wind picks up like today.

I just love Federer.

Also Roland Garros is my favourite tournament. I love clay court tennis, it's amazing to watch.

Yes always have loved Federer too and today he was superb, particularly the first set and the majority of the second set. Glad it was him to break Djokovic's streak too and it's going to be a class final between Nadal and him on Sunday. I've missed their French Open duels since Soderling decided to get good on clay. Just hope that Federer can finally overcome Nadal in the final for once, I feel so sorry for him when he loses. The faster balls definitely suit Federer more than Nadal too which is at least one advantage he has, still, I think it could be a 5 set epic. It's a shame the women's game doesn't have the consistency of the men's game with none of the top 4 getting to the last four, then again, maybe that is a good thing, I dunno, but I prefer seeing the top 4 players in the top 4 of the Grand Slams, it produces the best tennis.

Ryan Taylor wrote:It's a shame the women's game doesn't have the consistency of the men's game with none of the top 4 getting to the last four, then again, maybe that is a good thing, I dunno, but I prefer seeing the top 4 players in the top 4 of the Grand Slams, it produces the best tennis.

People used to complain about it being the other way round, saying that the was no depth in talent in the women's game. Could that be the case for the men's game now?

A few years ago it made a real difference which grand slam it was. The French was often won by someone nobody had ever heard of and who would always sturggle elsewhere. On the other hand Sampras once scraped tot he semi of the French but normally bombed out much earlier. I wonder what's happened. I don't really know much about the evolution of the game, but didn't they change the balls to stop Wimbledon being serve dominated and effectively cutting out serve and volleyers? While there is still something to be said about specialists on different surfaces, it seems that it just nudges it slightly in favour of certain players rather than producing a whole set of different winners as before. Discuss.

As a casual observer I don't see any obvious difference visually in the way the balls are behaving this year. I'm pretty sure there was a similar change in 1996 (when Sampras made the SF in Paris). That year Sampras beat two recent champions (Courier and Bruguera) and the final was contested by Kafelnikov and Stich - quite a contrast to the years either side. So it seems than the balls can change the way the game is played quite dramatically.

A few years back, the top guys at the French Open hardly bothered with the serve at all, just putting the ball in play and saving energy for the rallies. Apparently in one final Wilander missed just one first serve in the whole match. Wimbledon used to be dominated by a net-rushing style which sometimes made rallies non-existent. Compared with what we see nowadays I don't think either spectacle was particularly edifying.

On the other hand it's not as though the grass-court players couldn't succeed at the French Open in the past. Edberg almost won it one year and even Becker made at least one semi, when Wilander made him look like an idiot. It seems inconceivable nowadays that a player so dominant in one environment could appear so inept in another, so perhaps the homogenization of the game has gone quite far enough.

They should have different Olympic events for each surface, a bit like the hundreds of swimming events.

Jon O'Neill wrote:They should have different Olympic events for each surface, a bit like the hundreds of swimming events.

Shouldn't be an Olympic sport at all imo.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:They should have different Olympic events for each surface, a bit like the hundreds of swimming events.

Shouldn't be an Olympic sport at all imo.

I agree with you.

Ryan Taylor wrote:It's a shame the women's game doesn't have the consistency of the men's game with none of the top 4 getting to the last four, then again, maybe that is a good thing, I dunno, but I prefer seeing the top 4 players in the top 4 of the Grand Slams, it produces the best tennis.

I think the women's tournament has been brilliant this year. Schiavone has played some amazing tennis all the way through and had really entertaining battles with Jankovic and Pavlyuchenkova. She plays like a traditional clay courter and has more variety to her game than most girls on the tour. She'd fully deserve a second title.

Sharapova has also had a resurgence. She's injury-free for once and has finally found a way to play on clay. If the wind hadn't completely messed up her serve in the semis, I think she'd have beaten Na Li. Still, it's a great achievement for Li to make her second grand slam final in a row.

If Henin, the Williamses and Sharapova hadn't had so many injuries and Clijsters didn't have a kid to look after, they'd still all be regulars at the end of grand slams. When it comes to the younger generation, I think the introduction of on-court coaching on the WTA Tour has had a negative impact on them. Wozniacki, and Safina when she was number one, are very reliant on their coaches. When it comes to the grand slams they're not used to thinking for themselves. I still think Wozzy has a chance to win one soon.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:They should have different Olympic events for each surface, a bit like the hundreds of swimming events.

Shouldn't be an Olympic sport at all imo.

How should we determine what sports are Olympic sports?

Are the Olympics a bit shit anyway? Personally I hate all this competing "for your country" rubbish in individual sports. In track athletics, for example, if in one event the top eight in the world are all from one country, then it should be possible for all eight to make the final, rather than each country being limited to three or whatever. Discuss.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:They should have different Olympic events for each surface, a bit like the hundreds of swimming events.

Shouldn't be an Olympic sport at all imo.

How should we determine what sports are Olympic sports?

The way I usually judge it (and I'm aware this is a pretty common view) is whether winning Olympic gold is the top achievement in your sport. You could maybe argue this doesn't quite work (a sport could evolve to the point where the Olympics becomes the top prize or whatever), but it just seems like a bit of a waste of time having shit like football and tennis when no-one really cares.

Gavin Chipper wrote: In track athletics, for example, if in one event the top eight in the world are all from one country, then it should be possible for all eight to make the final, rather than each country being limited to three or whatever. Discuss.

Isn't that what happens?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Are the Olympics a bit shit anyway? Personally I hate all this competing "for your country" rubbish in individual sports. In track athletics, for example, if in one event the top eight in the world are all from one country, then it should be possible for all eight to make the final, rather than each country being limited to three or whatever. Discuss.

*discus

Gavin Chipper wrote: Are the Olympics a bit shit anyway? Personally I hate all this competing "for your country" rubbish in individual sports. In track athletics, for example, if in one event the top eight in the world are all from one country, then it should be possible for all eight to make the final, rather than each country being limited to three or whatever. Discuss.

FWIW Beijing 2008 was about when I was old enough to appreciate the Olympics and also had lots of time off and spent most my days watching it. I thought it was brilliant and could happily watch the coverage all day whether it be judo or archery it was all good to watch. I can't wait for London 2012, just gutted I didn't get any tickets (fucking sham) but I didn't think countries were limited to number of athletes, I thought if you were good enough, you competed. I agree that sports like football are a bit shit at the Olympics though and whereas I would normally want to watch football over any sport, I found myself more engaged by the badminton or the diving (not just because of Tom Daley).

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote: In track athletics, for example, if in one event the top eight in the world are all from one country, then it should be possible for all eight to make the final, rather than each country being limited to three or whatever. Discuss.

Isn't that what happens?

I was always under the impression (certainly in track and field) that countries were limited to three. In the world championships, I seem to remember them changing the rule for Michael Johnson because he didn't come in the top three in the US trials so they said that the current champions automatically get in (but not with the Olympics).

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote: In track athletics, for example, if in one event the top eight in the world are all from one country, then it should be possible for all eight to make the final, rather than each country being limited to three or whatever. Discuss.

Isn't that what happens?

I was always under the impression (certainly in track and field) that countries were limited to three. In the world championships, I seem to remember them changing the rule for Michael Johnson because he didn't come in the top three in the US trials so they said that the current champions automatically get in (but not with the Olympics).

In track and field it is it is limited to a maximum of three representing each country, but it is left to each national committee to choose their own selection method. Most countries will select those they believe have the best chance of winning medals.However, the U.S. system for a number of years now has been to hold a qualifying trial, at which the top three are automatically selected to the Olympic squad. In other words, a person could be the most dominant athlete in their discipline ever, a surefire gold medal prospect, but if they trip, fall ill, miss the trials for family reasons or travel restrictions, or just have an off day, they're out. I think that was the rule you're talking about here, rather than the IOC allowing four Americans to compete.

Edit:
Sorry, Gavin, you were right, The IAAF did change the rules to allow Johson to compete at the World Championships in Athens, but only because the Americans would not relax their rule that competing in the USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships was the only way to qualify for the World Championships. I doubt that the International Olympic Committee would do the same.

Liam Tiernan wrote: In track and field it is it is limited to a maximum of three representing each country, but it is left to each national committee to choose their own selection method.

Wow, that's pretty crap. I thought the original purpose of the Olympics was that each athlete represented only themselves, the country thing being nothing more than a convenience. Why not just have a qualifying time or whatever?

Gavin Chipper wrote: Are the Olympics a bit shit anyway? Personally I hate all this competing "for your country" rubbish in individual sports. In track athletics, for example, if in one event the top eight in the world are all from one country, then it should be possible for all eight to make the final, rather than each country being limited to three or whatever. Discuss.

I agree. Look at the Diamond League events 1500 up, nearly all East African and a much higher standard. At least 20/30 Kenyans would get in most countries' top 3. Having said that, I must say well done to Mo Farah for winning a stacked 10,000 at Eugene, Oregon on Friday night (even better - I'm coached by the guy who coached him as a junior ), breaking the European record.

I wonder if there would be demand for an athletics thread on here.

Oliver Garner wrote:I wonder if there would be demand for an athletics thread on here.

RB tried!

Matt Morrison wrote: RB tried!

Thought that was just the Colympics, which he and some obscure 19th century German composer won, I believe.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Liam Tiernan wrote: In track and field it is it is limited to a maximum of three representing each country, but it is left to each national committee to choose their own selection method.

Wow, that's pretty crap. I thought the original purpose of the Olympics was that each athlete represented only themselves, the country thing being nothing more than a convenience. Why not just have a qualifying time or whatever?

Sorry, I was a little vague there.This was the official position for the 2004 games

Each country may send a maximum of three athletes per event provided they have achieved the "A" standard and a maximum of 1 athlete per event provided they have achieved the "B" standard within the IAAF's qualifying period. In the event that a country does not produce any athletes to that level they may still select one male and one female athlete for a maximum of one event each

(can't find the relevant info for 2012)
but it is still down to each national committee to decide who goes.

Reading further it seems that the UKAthletics selection system is similar to the American one, with one important exception. Only the first TWO places at the qualifying trials are automatically selected. The final spot is selected by committee.

Been a great day's play at Wimbledon today. Picked Sabine Lisicki in the office predictions game, so I'm feeling pretty smug right now. My nerves are shot to hell, though. It's a good job Baltacha isn't playing tonight. I can't take much more.

Actually, I also picked Tsonga in the competition. He's just served for the match and failed. The day's not over yet.

I am being sensible and quiet for a week from now. I did a bet with a random man can't remember his name in the CoNot thread.

Tennis. Roger Federer. Sireena Williams. Andy Murray.
Thank you and kind regards,
Sensible for a week (and i will get you back after this week) Sophie.

Court 1 tomorrow with 3 former champions in 3 games (provided the rain holds off). In Row Z, but not complaining with that scheduled line-up

Nice one dude, enjoy. Maybe the camera will zoom in and Boris Becker will be like 'isn't zet zee guy off zet letters and nambers tv show you hev ova hee?'

Andy Wilson wrote:Nice one dude, enjoy. Maybe the camera will zoom in and Boris Becker will be like 'isn't zet zee guy off zet letters and nambers tv show you hev ova hee?'

Why does Boris Becker sound like a Chinese homosexual when he talks ?

Marc Meakin wrote:Why does Boris Becker sound like a Chinese homosexual when he talks ?

Because he Wan Ting Kok?

Adam Gillard wrote:Court 1 tomorrow with 3 former champions in 3 games (provided the rain holds off). In Row Z, but not complaining with that scheduled line-up

How expensive was it?

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:Court 1 tomorrow with 3 former champions in 3 games (provided the rain holds off). In Row Z, but not complaining with that scheduled line-up

How expensive was it?

I do not know. 0<:)

Soph K wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:Court 1 tomorrow with 3 former champions in 3 games (provided the rain holds off). In Row Z, but not complaining with that scheduled line-up

How expensive was it?

I do not know. 0<:)

I don't know either. Why the fuck are you even asking us, Jono?

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:Court 1 tomorrow with 3 former champions in 3 games (provided the rain holds off). In Row Z, but not complaining with that scheduled line-up

How expensive was it?

£58 (each). My friend got 2 tickets in the public ballot. Managed to see about half a set of Fleming & Hutchins' doubles match on Court 5, then on to Court 1 for Sharapova v Robson, V. Williams v Martinez Sanchez and the first set of Nadal v Muller (before it rained). Watched end of Azarenka and a bit of Murray's match on the big screen before we had to leave with the Sabbath fast approaching. Just got home about half an hour ago having stayed in Wimbledon over the Sabbath. All in all, a very enjoyable couple of days. No complaints about the rain; got to see plenty of tennis. Sharapova v Robson in particular had a very good atmosphere.

Marc Meakin wrote:....Why does Boris Becker sound like a Chinese homosexual when he talks ?....

What does he sound like when he doesn't talk?

So when someone is serving the receiver seems to always squat down and twiddle his racket (oo-er). But if you watch, by the time the server gets into his serving motion they've straightened up and aren't twiddling any more. What's the point in twiddling? Is it a distraction? Or just a way to focus? Or habit?

Michael Wallace wrote:So when someone is serving the receiver seems to always squat down and twiddle his racket (oo-er). But if you watch, by the time the server gets into his serving motion they've straightened up and aren't twiddling any more. What's the point in twiddling? Is it a distraction? Or just a way to focus? Or habit?

Fourth option would be stretching/resting - by putting your body in a different position it probably gives your back a bit of a break from standing upright and alert. Possibly.

Dunno, I do it though. Completely subconscious.

P.S. What a Wimbledon so far.

Michael Wallace wrote:So when someone is serving the receiver seems to always squat down and twiddle his racket (oo-er). But if you watch, by the time the server gets into his serving motion they've straightened up and aren't twiddling any more. What's the point in twiddling? Is it a distraction? Or just a way to focus? Or habit?

Dunno really. Whenever I'm playing I always twiddle the racket about just out of habit really, no more than that. I think if you are constanly gripping the racket then it can be come sweaty/sweatier on certain parts of the racket meaning your grip on the racket isn't as good. I recall Bjorg once serving at the US Open to McEnroe and the racket flew out of his hand when he hit the serve (McEnroe returned it and Bjorg hit it back with his feet and McEnroe did the same). Basically, it can be just to ensure their grip is erm grippier and also in the right position. You see them doing it before they serve the ball and also they spin their rackets after returning a ball sometimes too. Depending on what shot is required their grip constantly changes and so I guess having a loose feel over the racket is good.

As for the bending down thing, I really dunno. I played tennis for 3 hours this morning and not once did I do this and when I play matches I don't do this and nor do the opponents.

Ryan Taylor wrote:As for the bending down thing, I really dunno. I played tennis for 3 hours this morning and not once did I do this and when I play matches I don't do this and nor do the opponents.

Homophobes, the lot of you.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:So when someone is serving the receiver seems to always squat down and twiddle his racket (oo-er). But if you watch, by the time the server gets into his serving motion they've straightened up and aren't twiddling any more. What's the point in twiddling? Is it a distraction? Or just a way to focus? Or habit?

I recall Bjorg once serving at the US Open to McEnroe and the racket flew out of his hand when he hit the serve (McEnroe returned it and Bjorg hit it back with his feet and McEnroe did the same).

That really shows the skill of the men, able to kick a racket back and forth over the net.

I reckon if a player successfully challenges a call (using Hawk-eye) they should get a free hit of a tennis ball at the offending linesperson(s). Good idea or great idea?

Michael Wallace wrote:I reckon if a player successfully challenges a call (using Hawk-eye) they should get a free hit of a tennis ball at the offending linesperson(s). Good idea or great idea?

Good idea. As long as it works the other way round too.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:I reckon if a player successfully challenges a call (using Hawk-eye) they should get a free hit of a tennis ball at the offending linesperson(s). Good idea or great idea?

Good idea. As long as it works the other way round too.

I think they'd choose to stick with the arrogant knowing smile instead.

Do they really need to get three balls off the ball girls, check them and and then give one back? Are they really expecting there to be duff balls being used? And it's not like they then throw the one you gave back away, you're gonna be given it again at some stage.

Mark James wrote:Do they really need to get three balls off the ball girls, check them and and then give one back? Are they really expecting there to be duff balls being used? And it's not like they then throw the one you gave back away, you're gonna be given it again at some stage.

They get soft quite quickly when you hit them as hard as those guys do. So they all get soft at different rates. I guess it's an advantage to serve with harder balls since they go faster.

Michael Wallace wrote:So when someone is serving the receiver seems to always squat down and twiddle his racket (oo-er). But if you watch, by the time the server gets into his serving motion they've straightened up and aren't twiddling any more. What's the point in twiddling? Is it a distraction? Or just a way to focus? Or habit?

It's similar to a cricket player I guess. You have a sort of "trigger" movement where you go from a neutral balanced position to a position where you're ready to receive the ball - you're moving to the balls of your feet so that you're ready to move in either direction. I think they probably also can be more than 50% sure which direction the serve is coming from the direction the ball is tossed in, so you want to be in a low, steady position to see that ideally, and once you do, you react accordingly.

Just guessing though, with both of these.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Mark James wrote:Do they really need to get three balls off the ball girls, check them and and then give one back? Are they really expecting there to be duff balls being used? And it's not like they then throw the one you gave back away, you're gonna be given it again at some stage.

They get soft quite quickly when you hit them as hard as those guys do. So they all get soft at different rates. I guess it's an advantage to serve with harder balls since they go faster.

Fair enough but why do they still keep that soft ball in the rotation? That's the point I'm making.

Mark James wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Mark James wrote:Do they really need to get three balls off the ball girls, check them and and then give one back? Are they really expecting there to be duff balls being used? And it's not like they then throw the one you gave back away, you're gonna be given it again at some stage.

They get soft quite quickly when you hit them as hard as those guys do. So they all get soft at different rates. I guess it's an advantage to serve with harder balls since they go faster.

Fair enough but why do they still keep that soft ball in the rotation? That's the point I'm making.

Well the ball that they opt to use will then lose some of its firmness and then become similar to the balls they decline. So like as soon as new balls come out it's a slippery slope with them all and they all eventually become a bit duff. Although seen as these events have so much money they can afford to replace the full lot of balls frequently enough to the point that the balls becoming soft is hardly an issue. I can't remember how often the balls are replaced but it's something like every 9 games maybe (it has to be an odd number). God knows how many sets of balls were used in the Isner vs Mahout match from last year. Must have nearly bankrupt them.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Mark James wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:They get soft quite quickly when you hit them as hard as those guys do. So they all get soft at different rates. I guess it's an advantage to serve with harder balls since they go faster.

Fair enough but why do they still keep that soft ball in the rotation? That's the point I'm making.

Well the ball that they opt to use will then lose some of its firmness and then become similar to the balls they decline. So like as soon as new balls come out it's a slippery slope with them all and they all eventually become a bit duff. Although seen as these events have so much money they can afford to replace the full lot of balls frequently enough to the point that the balls becoming soft is hardly an issue. I can't remember how often the balls are replaced but it's something like every 9 games maybe (it has to be an odd number). God knows how many sets of balls were used in the Isner vs Mahout match from last year. Must have nearly bankrupt them.

It's after seven games at the start of the match and every nine thereafter. I don't think Wimbledon loses too much money on balls. You can buy used match balls in the Wimbledon shop (or at least you could at some point). They might well make a profit on them.

Martin Bishop wrote:I don't think Wimbledon loses too much money on balls. You can buy used match balls in the Wimbledon shop (or at least you could at some point). They might well make a profit on them.

Awesome. Always wondered what they did with them, I presumed they just offloaded them to the ballboys and ballgirls or something.

Martin Bishop wrote: It's after seven games at the start of the match and every nine thereafter. I don't think Wimbledon loses too much money on balls. You can buy used match balls in the Wimbledon shop (or at least you could at some point). They might well make a profit on them.

AFAIK all proceeds from the sale of used match balls go to charities, or at least that used to be the case.

That twiddling the racket thing is probably just something that everyone picks up from everyone else and probably partly a nervous thing and that it feels a bit weird just to be standing there doing nothing. Also what's with the finger flapping in snooker?

Also, how accurate is Hawkeye? I always think it's a bit funny that someone challenges a call, and they decide to "see what really happened" and actually just watch some computer game of the action. I think it would be funny if after they challenged, the camera just slowly zoomed in on this guy sitting in the corner that nobody noticed before and he just shouts "in" or "out".

But seriously, that weird elliptic shape that Hawkeye always reckons the ball is - really? It doesn't seem to depend on how fast the ball is going either. And how much of the ball actually touches the court when it lands - how much does it squash down? It has to touch the court, not just float above it, right? I don't fucking trust it at all.

Clive Brooker wrote:As a casual observer I don't see any obvious difference visually in the way the balls are behaving this year. I'm pretty sure there was a similar change in 1996 (when Sampras made the SF in Paris). That year Sampras beat two recent champions (Courier and Bruguera) and the final was contested by Kafelnikov and Stich - quite a contrast to the years either side. So it seems than the balls can change the way the game is played quite dramatically.

A few years back, the top guys at the French Open hardly bothered with the serve at all, just putting the ball in play and saving energy for the rallies. Apparently in one final Wilander missed just one first serve in the whole match. Wimbledon used to be dominated by a net-rushing style which sometimes made rallies non-existent. Compared with what we see nowadays I don't think either spectacle was particularly edifying.

On the other hand it's not as though the grass-court players couldn't succeed at the French Open in the past. Edberg almost won it one year and even Becker made at least one semi, when Wilander made him look like an idiot. It seems inconceivable nowadays that a player so dominant in one environment could appear so inept in another, so perhaps the homogenization of the game has gone quite far enough.

So with this homogenisation, it would be interesting to see how today's players would do in the past. Everyone seems to be an all-court specialist nowadays. Nadal was originally a clay court specialist until he became good everywhere. Would he have been able to beat Sampras in the serve and volley days? Also Sampras was very good at one end of the spectrum with his serve and volleying but fairly rubbish on clay, so in today's homogenised game, where would he stand? I need to know!

Gavin Chipper wrote:That twiddling the racket thing is probably just something that everyone picks up from everyone else and probably partly a nervous thing and that it feels a bit weird just to be standing there doing nothing. Also what's with the finger flapping in snooker?

Also, how accurate is Hawkeye? I always think it's a bit funny that someone challenges a call, and they decide to "see what really happened" and actually just watch some computer game of the action. I think it would be funny if after they challenged, the camera just slowly zoomed in on this guy sitting in the corner that nobody noticed before and he just shouts "in" or "out".

But seriously, that weird elliptic shape that Hawkeye always reckons the ball is - really? It doesn't seem to depend on how fast the ball is going either. And how much of the ball actually touches the court when it lands - how much does it squash down? It has to touch the court, not just float above it, right? I don't fucking trust it at all.

It can squash down shedloads. This has some pretty cool illustrative photos.

Edit: And as for accuracy, somewhere (possibly in that pdf) it says that it's accurate to within some percentage of the ball's diameter, which is equivalent to the fluff on the fall.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:That twiddling the racket thing is probably just something that everyone picks up from everyone else and probably partly a nervous thing and that it feels a bit weird just to be standing there doing nothing. Also what's with the finger flapping in snooker?

Also, how accurate is Hawkeye? I always think it's a bit funny that someone challenges a call, and they decide to "see what really happened" and actually just watch some computer game of the action. I think it would be funny if after they challenged, the camera just slowly zoomed in on this guy sitting in the corner that nobody noticed before and he just shouts "in" or "out".

But seriously, that weird elliptic shape that Hawkeye always reckons the ball is - really? It doesn't seem to depend on how fast the ball is going either. And how much of the ball actually touches the court when it lands - how much does it squash down? It has to touch the court, not just float above it, right? I don't fucking trust it at all.

It can squash down shedloads. This has some pretty cool illustrative photos.

Edit: And as for accuracy, somewhere (possibly in that pdf) it says that it's accurate to within some percentage of the ball's diameter, which is equivalent to the fluff on the fall.

That's quite interesting, but I still don't trust the fact that the size and shape of the "landing" always seems to be exactly the same, to my eyes anyway. Not every ball is whacked so I would have thought there would be some big differences.

Gavin Chipper wrote:That's quite interesting, but I still don't trust the fact that the size and shape of the "landing" always seems to be exactly the same, to my eyes anyway. Not every ball is whacked so I would have thought there would be some big differences.

I know what you mean, but I've been paying quite close attention to the shape of the ball landing thing on Hawk-eye of late and I've definitely noticed some that are much more circular than others.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:That's quite interesting, but I still don't trust the fact that the size and shape of the "landing" always seems to be exactly the same, to my eyes anyway. Not every ball is whacked so I would have thought there would be some big differences.

I know what you mean, but I've been paying quite close attention to the shape of the ball landing thing on Hawk-eye of late and I've definitely noticed some that are much more circular than others.

OK, fair enough.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:That's quite interesting, but I still don't trust the fact that the size and shape of the "landing" always seems to be exactly the same, to my eyes anyway. Not every ball is whacked so I would have thought there would be some big differences.

I know what you mean, but I've been paying quite close attention to the shape of the ball landing thing on Hawk-eye of late and I've definitely noticed some that are much more circular than others.

OK, fair enough.

When "OK, fair enough" is the only new post in a thread it is as much of a time waster as an Olympic-sized megalong post. Well, almost.

Matt Morrison wrote:When "OK, fair enough" is the only new post in a thread it is as much of a time waster as an Olympic-sized megalong post. Well, almost.

OK, fair enough.

Matt Morrison wrote:When "OK, fair enough" is the only new post in a thread it is as much of a time waster as an Olympic-sized megalong post. Well, almost.

megalong or megaschlong?!?!?!!