kskate2 said:
Kieran said:
1972Murat said:
Lost some respect for Davenport after the "tanking" comments before the year end championship.
What did she say? Did she tank a match? Or did she encourage it?
I don't remember verbatim, but it was something to the affect that Simona should have taken it easy (tanked) that match against Ivanovic so Serena would be shut out of the SF. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
I found the link:
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/10/serving-honor/53126/#.VFzgkvnF9Ah
No, she promoted "semi-tanking" and I completely agree with her, not withstanding the
objections of the moralists over here.
What is "semi-tanking"? She said Simona should try hard and win the first set. Once,
she win the first set, she should try hard try to win the match also. However, she said
that if Simona happens to lose the first set after really trying hard to win it (this
is what happened in that match), she should tank the match instead of trying to
eke out a three set win by staying in court for a long time, especially considering
that Simona needs to play in the meaningful SF match the very next day.
She did not advocate tanking with the express intent of blocking Serena.
But, She did avocate tanking with the intent of preserving Simona's energy
and so she advocated it only if Simona happens to lose the first set.
p.s. Interesting has anyone thought of this wonderful situation. What happens when
both the players involved in a match want to tank the match (perhaps for different)
reasons? :devil In Chess, there is a version of the match called reverse Chess where
whoever captures the opponent's King loses. A naive person, who is bad at regular
chess, might think that he would excel in reverse chess. But, be warned. I have heard that it is
equally difficult to win the "Reverse Chess" as regular chess. I am not an active
chess player and so others can weigh on this.