"But the problem with all this is that all the evidence suggests Wimbledon is not interested in commercial success...why don't they sell tickets online instead of an annoying postal system, increasing interest and boosting ticket prices.."
of course they are HB, just like anyone else, they just carry on in a slightly different way.
As for the ticket sale, they make tons of money from those and being so difficult to come by, the interest in debenture (really expensive tickets they actually make money on, not the peanuts ones with bad seats they give "cheaply" through ballots) is always high, they are a big business.
I looked into them and basically if you want to buy debenture tickets (i.e. the only way to make sure yo can actually see tennis at Wimbledon) it will cost you about £27K for 4 years.
Also Wimbledon tickets are a big commodity in business entertainment which explains why people look like zombies there most of the time.
HB:
I do not know how good they are at it but Wimbledon has certainly made some changes since the nineties and it is no secret. Was the type 3 ball not introduced partly to allow Wimbledon to slow down?
Also, when I hear the term "manipulate" that you use, it smells of cheating and maybe even "conspiracy theories". I do not think anyone is suggesting anything like that (certainly that is not what I am thinking of). Tinkering with conditions is perfectly within the tournaments' rights.
I do not know how good they are at it but Wimbledon has certainly made some changes since the nineties and it is no secret. Was the type 3 ball not introduced partly to allow Wimbledon to slow down?
-----------------------------
The balls used are actually type 2 balls. But they are right on the upper limit of type 2 balls and right after a few rallies and fluffing, they go over the limit and become type 3.
Manipulating or tinkering, does it really matter? Back in the beginning of the 90s I remember teh FO organisers doing their best to speed up clay and taked it away from the latin moonballers to give Sampras or Agassi a chance cause they were desperate to have bigger broadcasting rights from US channels to broadcast their chanpions in the later stages.
At that times those things were openly spoken. Now everything is done "behind the door". But it's the same thing...except that it makes us "conspiracionists"...however we live an era where I feel better being a conspiracionist but right than an idiot who believes everything he is being told.
Tenez, are the courts fast or no?
Hi wow - I have not watched a rally yet....I was playing myself...on grass
Tenez wrote:
The balls used are actually type 2 balls
---------------
Interesting, I was somehow assuming they were type 3 though come to think of it do not know why. Are there any big tournaments that use type 3 balls, do you know?
Apparently no slam is using type 3 balls but like you I thought they did. However type 2 or 3 is quite irrelevant cause we never knew how big or smalls were before they introduce those types in early 2000.
An official ball was between a size range and type 2 is also a size range with huge differences when considering one extreme of the range to the other even if the range is quite narrow.
I remember in the recent past we used USO Wilsons (2001-2007) at our club and they had this tendency to get through the fence after a good serve or good FH. while the SLazengers used at Wimbleodon never pierced through the fence. Nowadays the USO balls are roughly the same size as the Slaz and never leave the court even worn out. There are been a clear increase in size for the Wilsons.
I find it interesting that the ball manufacturers are all hiding information about dimensions of their balls but have no problem mentioning the weight in most cases. Weird really.
Can't somebody just get one and measure it?
but for me the best balance between fast pace of the Wimbledon 90s are todays are actually USO 90s
------------
same here, I thought back then USO played just nice. In the late 90s it was the only major I really enjoyed watching.
Tenez wrote:
It's easier for the crowd at large to appreciate the effort of bringing what woudl be a winner's ball back than the more subtile work
-------------------
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste? Why would, or even should, an organizer come and say that no they do not like defensive tennis putting premium on athletic abilities, so they will set up their tournament to be attacker-friendly even if that is not what the public wants?
I may not be too thrilled that tennis has slowed down but who am I to want to override what other people enjoy?
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste?
=========================
That applies for everything: food, art, musique, etc.... It's about meeting in the middle between "educated" and "undecuated" tastes. I don;t mean to appear a snob but there is room for McDonalds and Sushis, for Madonna and Rossini. We shoudl not push down people's throat just one version of something.
I was a Borg fan and my favourite food when I was 4 was a salami sandwish with a coke. Thanks to Borg I loved tennis and since playing I know what it takes to play like Nadal or play like Federer.
Today in tennis we have double cheese big Macs but no osso bucco! Or let's put it this way when you have the finest chief in the world being snubbed by the masses preferring Subway, you know there is something wrong!
Tenez,
masses have always ruled and that is not about to change any time soon.
There but by the grace of God go I
masses have always ruled and that is not about to change any time soon.
-------------------------
Really? I don't think that's the feeling they have!
@
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I've said this many times. Most of those people do not know tennis nor care about it. They like to see the drama which a tennis match at times can produce. For them watching a tennis match or going for a movie is no different. They can easily appreciate the brute power, speed and a gruesome game which leaves bothe players exhausted. Thats where the maximum drama lies. The crowd has always been sympathetic to wards the "defender" who is the underdog. And there is nothing like when after a 25 shot rally, the defender soaks up everything that the attacking player offered and then wins the point. High drama.
Such people don't care about sports. And they are always going to be the masses. Justin Beiber is definitely more appreciated and known than Mozart. But is Beiber or his music anyway near to Mozart?
The crowd has always been sympathetic to wards the "defender" who is the underdog.
----------------------------------------
I am actually not so sure about it. In fact people like Rafa cause he is the one you woudl naturally warm up to if yuo had no clue about tennis. Younger, energetic, emotional on the court, "tamed macho" image (pretty sure what turns women on) and so on.
But...but ...I have noticed funnily that the crowd often ends up during a tight match v Nadal supporting the opponent, the risk taker, the more artistic player. That was most obvious in Dubai or Daho when Nadal was facing Davydenko, or even in Rome a few years back. The crowd starts to understand what's going on and though they still want Nadal to win, they are much more split as the match goes on. In DOha you had teh whole crowd cheering for Davydenko at the end cause they coudl see he was the one making the game.
But sure once the match is over they don;t quite realise why they supported the opponent to Nadal, the underdog.
Having said that the same can happen if an attacking player simply blasts the opponent off court but then they see more ball coming back and can start supporting the defending player.
Crowds are complex to analyse actually.
Sign in if you want to comment
The serve - What happened?
Page 2 of 2
posted on 27/5/12
"But the problem with all this is that all the evidence suggests Wimbledon is not interested in commercial success...why don't they sell tickets online instead of an annoying postal system, increasing interest and boosting ticket prices.."
of course they are HB, just like anyone else, they just carry on in a slightly different way.
As for the ticket sale, they make tons of money from those and being so difficult to come by, the interest in debenture (really expensive tickets they actually make money on, not the peanuts ones with bad seats they give "cheaply" through ballots) is always high, they are a big business.
I looked into them and basically if you want to buy debenture tickets (i.e. the only way to make sure yo can actually see tennis at Wimbledon) it will cost you about £27K for 4 years.
Also Wimbledon tickets are a big commodity in business entertainment which explains why people look like zombies there most of the time.
posted on 27/5/12
HB:
I do not know how good they are at it but Wimbledon has certainly made some changes since the nineties and it is no secret. Was the type 3 ball not introduced partly to allow Wimbledon to slow down?
Also, when I hear the term "manipulate" that you use, it smells of cheating and maybe even "conspiracy theories". I do not think anyone is suggesting anything like that (certainly that is not what I am thinking of). Tinkering with conditions is perfectly within the tournaments' rights.
posted on 27/5/12
I do not know how good they are at it but Wimbledon has certainly made some changes since the nineties and it is no secret. Was the type 3 ball not introduced partly to allow Wimbledon to slow down?
-----------------------------
The balls used are actually type 2 balls. But they are right on the upper limit of type 2 balls and right after a few rallies and fluffing, they go over the limit and become type 3.
Manipulating or tinkering, does it really matter? Back in the beginning of the 90s I remember teh FO organisers doing their best to speed up clay and taked it away from the latin moonballers to give Sampras or Agassi a chance cause they were desperate to have bigger broadcasting rights from US channels to broadcast their chanpions in the later stages.
At that times those things were openly spoken. Now everything is done "behind the door". But it's the same thing...except that it makes us "conspiracionists"...however we live an era where I feel better being a conspiracionist but right than an idiot who believes everything he is being told.
posted on 27/5/12
Tenez, are the courts fast or no?
posted on 27/5/12
Hi wow - I have not watched a rally yet....I was playing myself...on grass
posted on 27/5/12
Tenez wrote:
The balls used are actually type 2 balls
---------------
Interesting, I was somehow assuming they were type 3 though come to think of it do not know why. Are there any big tournaments that use type 3 balls, do you know?
posted on 27/5/12
Apparently no slam is using type 3 balls but like you I thought they did. However type 2 or 3 is quite irrelevant cause we never knew how big or smalls were before they introduce those types in early 2000.
An official ball was between a size range and type 2 is also a size range with huge differences when considering one extreme of the range to the other even if the range is quite narrow.
I remember in the recent past we used USO Wilsons (2001-2007) at our club and they had this tendency to get through the fence after a good serve or good FH. while the SLazengers used at Wimbleodon never pierced through the fence. Nowadays the USO balls are roughly the same size as the Slaz and never leave the court even worn out. There are been a clear increase in size for the Wilsons.
I find it interesting that the ball manufacturers are all hiding information about dimensions of their balls but have no problem mentioning the weight in most cases. Weird really.
posted on 27/5/12
Can't somebody just get one and measure it?
posted on 28/5/12
but for me the best balance between fast pace of the Wimbledon 90s are todays are actually USO 90s
------------
same here, I thought back then USO played just nice. In the late 90s it was the only major I really enjoyed watching.
posted on 28/5/12
Tenez wrote:
It's easier for the crowd at large to appreciate the effort of bringing what woudl be a winner's ball back than the more subtile work
-------------------
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste? Why would, or even should, an organizer come and say that no they do not like defensive tennis putting premium on athletic abilities, so they will set up their tournament to be attacker-friendly even if that is not what the public wants?
I may not be too thrilled that tennis has slowed down but who am I to want to override what other people enjoy?
posted on 28/5/12
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste?
=========================
That applies for everything: food, art, musique, etc.... It's about meeting in the middle between "educated" and "undecuated" tastes. I don;t mean to appear a snob but there is room for McDonalds and Sushis, for Madonna and Rossini. We shoudl not push down people's throat just one version of something.
I was a Borg fan and my favourite food when I was 4 was a salami sandwish with a coke. Thanks to Borg I loved tennis and since playing I know what it takes to play like Nadal or play like Federer.
Today in tennis we have double cheese big Macs but no osso bucco! Or let's put it this way when you have the finest chief in the world being snubbed by the masses preferring Subway, you know there is something wrong!
posted on 28/5/12
Tenez,
masses have always ruled and that is not about to change any time soon.
There but by the grace of God go I
posted on 28/5/12
masses have always ruled and that is not about to change any time soon.
-------------------------
Really? I don't think that's the feeling they have!
posted on 28/5/12
@
But if say this is indeed true, then who is to say that the tournaments should not cater to the public's taste?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I've said this many times. Most of those people do not know tennis nor care about it. They like to see the drama which a tennis match at times can produce. For them watching a tennis match or going for a movie is no different. They can easily appreciate the brute power, speed and a gruesome game which leaves bothe players exhausted. Thats where the maximum drama lies. The crowd has always been sympathetic to wards the "defender" who is the underdog. And there is nothing like when after a 25 shot rally, the defender soaks up everything that the attacking player offered and then wins the point. High drama.
Such people don't care about sports. And they are always going to be the masses. Justin Beiber is definitely more appreciated and known than Mozart. But is Beiber or his music anyway near to Mozart?
posted on 28/5/12
The crowd has always been sympathetic to wards the "defender" who is the underdog.
----------------------------------------
I am actually not so sure about it. In fact people like Rafa cause he is the one you woudl naturally warm up to if yuo had no clue about tennis. Younger, energetic, emotional on the court, "tamed macho" image (pretty sure what turns women on) and so on.
But...but ...I have noticed funnily that the crowd often ends up during a tight match v Nadal supporting the opponent, the risk taker, the more artistic player. That was most obvious in Dubai or Daho when Nadal was facing Davydenko, or even in Rome a few years back. The crowd starts to understand what's going on and though they still want Nadal to win, they are much more split as the match goes on. In DOha you had teh whole crowd cheering for Davydenko at the end cause they coudl see he was the one making the game.
But sure once the match is over they don;t quite realise why they supported the opponent to Nadal, the underdog.
Having said that the same can happen if an attacking player simply blasts the opponent off court but then they see more ball coming back and can start supporting the defending player.
Crowds are complex to analyse actually.
Page 2 of 2