Wimbledon Running Thread. *Updated--Isner wins 70-68 in 5th*

I know this is really a dumb question but - is there no fifth set tie-break at Wimbeldon?

 

You really need to ask that question today? We just witnessed a three day 138 game fifth set, what do you think?

 

I understand that -- I just wanted to make sure I wasn't assuming the wrong reason it went 138 games.

Cut me some slack, I watch two tennis tournaments a year.

 

Would you watch more often if they changed the rules to better suit an American audience?

 

No, I like tennis a lot.

But I don't like watching any tournaments, be it golf, football, basketball, tennis, soccer -- if I can't watch the majority of the games leading up to the championship and frankly I just don't have enough time to watch most tennis tournaments.

I do make time to watch the U.S. Open and Wimbeldon.

I can't stand the French Open for the same reason I can't stand the British Open -- that just isn't how those two sports are supposed to be played and there is nothing interesting about either of them.

I'd watch the Australian Open except the time difference makes it seem impossible to follow.

 

How anyone can think that Isner-Mahut wasn't pure awesomeness eludes me. If I were Wimbledon, I'd be wishing for one like that every year

 

I have a friend who is way into tennis, plays it, watches it, writes about it.

His comment "it wasn't that exciting because it was almost entirely about serves and aces. There were no really memorable points outside of the one where the one guy dove for the ball and lost his racquet and even then, the only reason that was memorable was because it happened so late in the match and people applauded his effort."

 

Only thing that bothers me is that Queen Liz II attended her first match in 30-something years and she couldn't have bothered to stop by to watch some of the marathon.

I understand if there were security concerns or something like that, but it's not like she has an oil spill to worry about. Show some sportsmanship and watch a few points.

 

It was the most boring 70-68 tennis set I've ever seen.

It really was devoid of drama and great plays. I'll forget the two guys' names in a week. It was like the Roddick/Federer final from last year that wound up 16-14 in the final set, but was pretty much just all serves. That wasn't a great match, and neither was this.

 

That was my friend's contention and he brought up that Roddick/Federer match and recited a number of memorable points from it and said it was much different than this one.

I couldn't argue either way because I didn't watch much of this match until it was like 64-64 and by then they were both so dead it wasn't very interesting other than the admirable will to win and refusal to quit by both guys.

 

You've seen another?

 

The weird thing is, as everyone who's ever covered tennis knows, is that tennis fans are incredibly consistent. They ALWAYS root for the player who's behind, because what they root FOR is to get to see more tennis.
They finally got their wish!!!

PS: Heard on CBS News Mahut had a doubles match today.