Search This Blog

Friday, March 24, 2017

On Colette's TRN article, 'Doubles Dip?'

I have to also write yesterday's ISC recap so will briefly touch on this.

First want to thank Colette for bringing this most urgent of issues to the spotlight in the first place, since I don't hear anything coming from the tennis community itself. I mean if Colette can't raise awareness, who can. Also the overall tennis community should be ashamed of themselves; it has come to this, the 3rd party(Colette) raising this issue.

Now I have some issues with the contents(or the arguments);

" Doubles is:

fun to play and watch,
an appetizer for singles play,
a vehicle for juniors to improve their games,
a key point in a Division I dual match,
a scheduling nightmare"

That appetizer argument again. Colette, et tu(although Caesar is said to have uttered that phrase in ancient greek lol)?
The whole problem arises from exactly this mindset. How can this mindset 'save' college tennis, when 'casual' fans enjoy doubles vastly more?
I've said this again and again, but do TRY to get IN to those doubles matches at IW tennis tournament! Even if there's no stars playing, the stadium is always jam-packed!

Doubles is a key point? Again, how did Stanford win NCAA last year? If Doubles is truly to be a key point, they should award 1 point EACH to every doubles match. It'll suit TV's time requirement as well, no?

A scheduling nightmare?  Colette herself mentioned this;

"What the tournament staff did not need in the midst of all these setbacks was a three hour and 46 minute match"

Yeah it's SINGLES match between Johnson and Chen.

What do you think is the real scheduling nightmare in Slams lol; 5-set men's singles matches, of course lol. That infamous Mahut-Isner match, remember?

What is longer, 3-set singles match or doubles.

And, exactly how is cutting 2 doubles games going to vastly improve that 'schedule'?

As I said, I strongly suspect that they're aiming for 2-hour match, not 3.
Mr. Mountford himself acknowledges this, saying it'll be '6-3 in 15 minutes later or whatever'.

Mr. Mountford also mentioned players' welfare.

Yeah, that;

So what taxes players more, vastly longer singles, or doubles?

And, have they actually ASKED AND CONSULTED the players themselves about this 'welfare issue'? Didn't really bother about it, eh?

See, all those 'arguments' make zero logic/sense.

It all comes to this though, no? Simple, really;

"Reynolds believes the shorter Division I doubles point is necessary to keep the dual match time frame within television or streaming parameters"

Yeah, TV will save college tennis, eh? Good luck with that.

No comments: