2013 Wimbledon SF: Murray vs. Janowicz

[Andrew William]

Hes a one in a million. I really cant say Ive ever seen a returning like Djoker

 

[Andrew William]

returner*

 

[DarthFed]

Yes, but it was 8:30pm in England when they shut the roof, which is long before twilight. I don't see why the end of a set, with all the momentum in one player's favor is a better time than at 3-3 or 4-4 in the middle of a set. I guess you might say it would have been momentum killing to JJ, had he gone up a set and a break or 2 in the 4th, and had to stop at 5-2, in his favor, let's say. But why is that more fair than stopping Murray when he's striding, and you might have had time to finish another set? If there were only 15-25 mins. of daylight left, I see doing it at the end of a set. When there is arguably enough time to finish a set, and a player has momentum, I think that's unfair.

I think you're smart enough to know the difference between closing the roof at the end of a set vs. possibly having to do it right before a player serves for the match or serves to stay in the match. And I doubt Iona would be complaining about this if Murray had just lost the 3rd and they made the same decision. I think it made perfect sense. You build the roof so things like rain AND lack of light don't play an influence in the final result

 

[Andrew William]

agreed

 

[Andrew William]

Its the quality of the return. Federer could chip a lot back in his heyday, but Novak sends hit back with interest.

 

[Andrew William]

And thats why serving will be a big deal in the finals. Murrays 2nd serve vs Djokovics return. Ouch

 

[Andrew William]

That was the Poles problem He was being fed some really bad stuff, and couldnt take advantage.

 

[Andrew William]

Not by any stretch. I do like the match up with these two. I guess Im in lonely company.

 

[Andrew William]

Getting the ball by these two takes ingenuity and deception.

 

[Andrew William]

yeah I hear that a lot.

 

[Andrew William]

Likewise buddy. Get some rest. See you for the finals!

 

[Andrew William]

I didn't quite understand what precipitated the need to close the roof either. Janowicz was whining about it for a while, but why that should sway them to alter any normal format is befuddling.

I doubt that it swayed them at all. It will be interesting to hear for the tournament chairman, but I'll bet they were planning on closing it at the end of the third set.

It makes sense they wanted to do it at the beginning of the 4th set as opposed to in the middle or at the end. I'd just like to know what the precedent is for such situations. Is it when 'a' player complains about vision problems, both, or a specific time, etc.

 

[isabelle]

Murray didn't convince me yesterday
he has to play much better than that to clinch the title
hope he can play agressively from the beginning sunday if not Nole 'll prevail
I'll root for him anyway

 

[tented]

I didn't quite understand what precipitated the need to close the roof either. Janowicz was whining about it for a while, but why that should sway them to alter any normal format is befuddling.

I doubt that it swayed them at all. It will be interesting to hear for the tournament chairman, but I'll bet they were planning on closing it at the end of the third set.

It makes sense they wanted to do it at the beginning of the 4th set as opposed to in the middle or at the end. I'd just like to know what the precedent is for such situations. Is it when 'a' player complains about vision problems, both, or a specific time, etc.

Good questions, but I highly doubt the chairman, or anyone else, will make a statement, because that could back them into a corner on future occasions.

What I would like to know, though, is did they say anything to the players before the match began? It would seem not, otherwise there wouldn't have been so much debate mid-match. However, they knew it was relatively late before the players even walked on court. Why wouldn't they have already formulated a plan, and told JJ and Murray? Why surprise and frustrate them so far into the match?

 

[britbox]

The chatroom discussion during the match has been merged into this thread.

 

[tented]

The chatroom discussion during the match has been merged into this thread.

Thanks, Britbox. This way we'll get the best of both worlds: the immediacy of the chatroom during the matches, and the archival of the discussions in the threads.

 

[Mog]

I think since they have a roof on Centre court now, they should set the standard at what visibility the roof should be closed. To do this introduce the light-meter to decide the visibility. Federer-Nadal match was played until 9-40pm as Murray pointed out , which was questionable then(no roof then).

 

[reddy]

I think since they have a roof on Centre court now, they should set the standard at what visibility the roof should be closed. To do this introduce the light-meter to decide the visibility. Federer-Nadal match was played until 9-40pm as Murray pointed out , which was questionable then(no roof then).

Using a light meter is a good policy in theory. The problem however is if visibility is suddenly low as per the light meter when someone is serving to stay in the match (or win the match) would you halt play and close the roof causing a 20 minute delay. That would cause great controversy.
The tournament director decided that it was likely that light might deteriorate sometime during the 4th set if the roof wasn't closed. If they had continued and had the light deteriorated at a critical point (scores 4-5, 5-6, etc.) it would be very annoying to close the roof at that point.

 

[Mog]

I think since they have a roof on Centre court now, they should set the standard at what visibility the roof should be closed. To do this introduce the light-meter to decide the visibility. Federer-Nadal match was played until 9-40pm as Murray pointed out , which was questionable then(no roof then).

Using a light meter is a good policy in theory. The problem however is if visibility is suddenly low as per the light meter when someone is serving to stay in the match (or win the match) would you halt play and close the roof causing a 20 minute delay. That would cause great controversy.
The tournament director decided that it was likely that light might deteriorate sometime during the 4th set if the roof wasn't closed. If they had continued and had the light deteriorated at a critical point (scores 4-5, 5-6, etc.) it would be very annoying to close the roof at that point.

:

Reddy I see what you are saying. But it is not going to be losing light/visibility instantly. They can wisely make decision
at the proper stage of game. They surely can monitor the situation as the lights are falling. But in such cases players can not complain/object the closing the roof.

 

[Iona16]

Yes, but it was 8:30pm in England when they shut the roof, which is long before twilight. I don't see why the end of a set, with all the momentum in one player's favor is a better time than at 3-3 or 4-4 in the middle of a set. I guess you might say it would have been momentum killing to JJ, had he gone up a set and a break or 2 in the 4th, and had to stop at 5-2, in his favor, let's say. But why is that more fair than stopping Murray when he's striding, and you might have had time to finish another set? If there were only 15-25 mins. of daylight left, I see doing it at the end of a set. When there is arguably enough time to finish a set, and a player has momentum, I think that's unfair.

I think you're smart enough to know the difference between closing the roof at the end of a set vs. possibly having to do it right before a player serves for the match or serves to stay in the match. And I doubt Iona would be complaining about this if Murray had just lost the 3rd and they made the same decision. I think it made perfect sense. You build the roof so things like rain AND lack of light don't play an influence in the final result

The All England Club has always insisted that the tournament remains an outdoor event. Under Wimbledon’s own protocol for use of the roof, the decision is left to the judgement of the referee. The protocol states:

“In good weather, the roof will only be used if it is too dark to play on without it.”

That is my problem with the decision that was made to close the roof. Janowicz had been complaining bitterly to the umpire about the light at changeovers since before 8pm. Numerous matches during the tournament have been played beyond 9pm. It was a beautiful evening in London and by all accounts there was absolutely no need to stop the match at that point.

Whether Andy had won the 3rd set or not I would have still been perplexed by the decision to close the roof. I feel the referee was unduly influenced by the complaints of Janowicz. In a pathetic attempt to appear fair they closed the roof and in doing so made a decision that was unfair to Murray. That is how I feel about the situation.

Anyway, I’m over it. Janowicz got his wish and Murray won regardless.