Good analysis. I always liked that on clay the players were allowed to have a sort of agreement between each other and the umpire about what happened. It made for a better sportsmanship angle. They often seemed to share the wins - one this time, one next time, and if it was agreed the umpire was wrong they even hit the ball intentionally…
Good analysis. I always liked that on clay the players were allowed to have a sort of agreement between each other and the umpire about what happened. It made for a better sportsmanship angle. They often seemed to share the wins - one this time, one next time, and if it was agreed the umpire was wrong they even hit the ball intentionally out to even up the score as an honour thing. I don't believe many umpires are malicious or want a particular player to lose - I believe they wish to do their job correctly. The let cord fiascos at the recent AO and last year's ATP Cup showed just how bad over-sensitive electronic calls can be for both players. The worst culprits for screwing the umpires are not the players but the commentators. My opinion.
Good analysis. I always liked that on clay the players were allowed to have a sort of agreement between each other and the umpire about what happened. It made for a better sportsmanship angle. They often seemed to share the wins - one this time, one next time, and if it was agreed the umpire was wrong they even hit the ball intentionally out to even up the score as an honour thing. I don't believe many umpires are malicious or want a particular player to lose - I believe they wish to do their job correctly. The let cord fiascos at the recent AO and last year's ATP Cup showed just how bad over-sensitive electronic calls can be for both players. The worst culprits for screwing the umpires are not the players but the commentators. My opinion.