Fair Play: Tennis is not for sissies
I WITNESSED history made the other night and it wasn’t even about the World Cup.
It’s not about reigning World Cup champion Italy’s first-round exit, that’s not historic. France already did that in 2002.
It’s about John Isner and Nicolas Mahut.
A few months back, when Roger Federer added the 2010 Australian Open to his collection, one KSP poster in a boxing forum posted that tennis was a game for sissies. Then he went on to compare it with the manly sport of football (the American kind) basketball, boxing, baseball…etc.
Some were quick to correct him and I also wanted to join but I didn’t because it was what he wanted—a chance to have his 15 kilobytes of fame.
I hope that poster is paying attention to news channels these days because even if you’re not watching your favorite tennis show, that epic match involving Isner and Mahut is bound to be in the news.
The two finally finished their first round match, two days after they started it in 11 hours and five minutes. Play was suspended for the second straight day, due to darkness, after both were tied at 59, in the fifth set. Fifty-freakin’ nine!
After ending at 59-all, they played an additional 20 games in just over an hour in Day 3 and that was longer than some of the women’s second round matches.
You have to have nerves of steel, and otherworldly stamina to play six hours of tennis but 11 hours and five minutes?
The record for baseball, a game not limited by time, is eight hours and six minutes and that involves nine men and substitutions.
Basketball? Pau Gasol had the longest playing time of the LA Lakers in the NBA finals, which went the whole seven games, at six hours, 53 minutes and 20 seconds. Paul Pierce led the Celtics at six hours, 38 minutes and 5 seconds.
That’s awfully short of 11 hours.
This early, people are already saying that the Isner vs. Mahut match will be the one that will be remembered for the ages, not Roger Federer’s or Rafa Nadal’s.
ITALY’S OUT. If the Americans are pissed by having two goals in three games disallowed, the Italians must be on a whole new level by having two goals disallowed in the last 24 minutes of their game.
Had it involved a Philippine team in basketball or had it been an NBA finals, some of the bold fans would be screaming, “Gi-mafia.”
Fabio Quagliarilla came close in the 66th but his shot was cleared by a defender. The Italians said the ball crossed the line but the assistant referee stuck with his decision. Though the commentator was quick to praise the official for a good decision, I don’t think any of the replays showed he was right and the ball never cleared the line.
In the 84th, a potential equalizer was disallowed for offside.
Offside calls are easy to spot on TV but they’re one of the toughest to make on the pitch since you have to pay attention to two things—the opposing team’s striker and the pass. And these two are never in one line of sight.
Though Italy managed to score another in the 90th, their final push was disrupted by the timewasting antics of Slovakia—faking injuries, and using two substitutions after the 90th minute.
But, some say, the Italians were getting their due.
Still yesterday’s game may fuel the talk to bring football to the technological age by using video replays to help the referees. The NBA did that and even boxing, for a while, considered that.
Strangely enough, I think yesterday’s game was proof video replays will be bad for the sport. For a game that intense to be interrupted while referees check the video replays? Oh my!
But yesterday’s game also shows there’s merit in Uefa’s suggestion of adding two more officials to patrol the penalty areas, where most of the contentious decisions occur.
Those extra pair of eyes could have helped the referee judge if the ball really went over the line.
Heck,, it could have even helped spot the punch the Slovakian keeper gave a striker, an incident which happened just feet away from the referee.
Those extra pairs of eyes could have been really useful in that game.
It’s not about reigning World Cup champion Italy’s first-round exit, that’s not historic. France already did that in 2002.
It’s about John Isner and Nicolas Mahut.
A few months back, when Roger Federer added the 2010 Australian Open to his collection, one KSP poster in a boxing forum posted that tennis was a game for sissies. Then he went on to compare it with the manly sport of football (the American kind) basketball, boxing, baseball…etc.
Some were quick to correct him and I also wanted to join but I didn’t because it was what he wanted—a chance to have his 15 kilobytes of fame.
I hope that poster is paying attention to news channels these days because even if you’re not watching your favorite tennis show, that epic match involving Isner and Mahut is bound to be in the news.
The two finally finished their first round match, two days after they started it in 11 hours and five minutes. Play was suspended for the second straight day, due to darkness, after both were tied at 59, in the fifth set. Fifty-freakin’ nine!
After ending at 59-all, they played an additional 20 games in just over an hour in Day 3 and that was longer than some of the women’s second round matches.
You have to have nerves of steel, and otherworldly stamina to play six hours of tennis but 11 hours and five minutes?
The record for baseball, a game not limited by time, is eight hours and six minutes and that involves nine men and substitutions.
Basketball? Pau Gasol had the longest playing time of the LA Lakers in the NBA finals, which went the whole seven games, at six hours, 53 minutes and 20 seconds. Paul Pierce led the Celtics at six hours, 38 minutes and 5 seconds.
That’s awfully short of 11 hours.
This early, people are already saying that the Isner vs. Mahut match will be the one that will be remembered for the ages, not Roger Federer’s or Rafa Nadal’s.
ITALY’S OUT. If the Americans are pissed by having two goals in three games disallowed, the Italians must be on a whole new level by having two goals disallowed in the last 24 minutes of their game.
Had it involved a Philippine team in basketball or had it been an NBA finals, some of the bold fans would be screaming, “Gi-mafia.”
Fabio Quagliarilla came close in the 66th but his shot was cleared by a defender. The Italians said the ball crossed the line but the assistant referee stuck with his decision. Though the commentator was quick to praise the official for a good decision, I don’t think any of the replays showed he was right and the ball never cleared the line.
In the 84th, a potential equalizer was disallowed for offside.
Offside calls are easy to spot on TV but they’re one of the toughest to make on the pitch since you have to pay attention to two things—the opposing team’s striker and the pass. And these two are never in one line of sight.
Though Italy managed to score another in the 90th, their final push was disrupted by the timewasting antics of Slovakia—faking injuries, and using two substitutions after the 90th minute.
But, some say, the Italians were getting their due.
Still yesterday’s game may fuel the talk to bring football to the technological age by using video replays to help the referees. The NBA did that and even boxing, for a while, considered that.
Strangely enough, I think yesterday’s game was proof video replays will be bad for the sport. For a game that intense to be interrupted while referees check the video replays? Oh my!
But yesterday’s game also shows there’s merit in Uefa’s suggestion of adding two more officials to patrol the penalty areas, where most of the contentious decisions occur.
Those extra pair of eyes could have helped the referee judge if the ball really went over the line.
Heck,, it could have even helped spot the punch the Slovakian keeper gave a striker, an incident which happened just feet away from the referee.
Those extra pairs of eyes could have been really useful in that game.
Comments