The Wimbledon closed roof was meaningful

Enceladus

Legend
The roof closed in Saturday's finish part match Djokovic-Nadal caused the TTW a wave of criticism. In this comment I try to explain the context and circumstances that led to the closed roof and vindicate this decision.

1) Let's get back to the beginning - why was the match finished on Saturday afternoon when its original part was held on Friday night at the Center Court equipped with artificial lighting? In all other tournaments, such a match would be held without interruption, usually the matches are interrupted due to the lack of light (and the lack of artificial lighting on the courts). The curfew is valid from 11:00 PM. The residents of the Wimbledon district forced them through their elected representatives. Wimbledon's promoters could not, rather than tolerate this constraint, move around one of the most famous tennis tournaments in the world. The program did not bother this restriction until Friday, 13th July.
If this limit did not exist, the Djokovic-Nadal match would continue without interruption - under a closed roof. The Saturday's finish part of the match was to compensate for the unrealized part of the match after 11:00 PM with everything - the closed roof.

2) We are reaching the second point - a confusion of terms. As a closed roof defense it was stated that the same conditions would be maintained. And that was a mistake. Conditions are clear, cloudy, light, dark, windy, windless, etc. This is an unstable factor that changes over time. People complained that, while maintaining the same conditions, the Saturday end of the duel began at 8:00 PM as the original Friday part match.
However, the organizers had an open / closed roof. What they wanted to preserve were not the conditions, but the environment in which the original part of the game took place. The environment is a stable element - in tennis we have either an outdoor or indoor environment. Holt, bad words can make a mess.

3) Why is it so important to keep the original environment when, due to the rainy weather, the match can change from outdoor to indoor? This question partly corresponds to the first point - the need to fully compensate for the unfulfilled part of the match due to the curfew. This need is underlined by the rule of completing the match under the roof. It usual outdoor match to finish outdoors - and indoor match in indoors. An exception is when the roofs were installed at different stadiums - avoiding program delays. At that time, the outdoor matches changes on indoor matches, but the opposite is not the case here.

4) Why does an outdoor tournament hold an indoor match? You know, today's many outdoor tournaments such as Wimbledon, AO, USO and others are outdoor tournaments with the option of indoor matches. The fact that the semi-final match of Djokovic-Nadal is no exception, we could see this January in the AO Federer-Cilic final.

5) Djokovic contributed to the decision to leave the roof closed. Djokovic's explanation at the press conference was gritty, but he finally said the organizers had said their opinion and that he wanted to continue under the closed roof. He had the right and to criticize him for being hypocritical. In his place, most of us would do the same.

In conclusion - that Saturday's final part of the Djokovic-Nadal match under the closed roof has my understanding. And I believe I'm not alone on TTW.
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
However, the organizers had an open / closed roof. What they wanted to preserve were not the conditions, but the environment in which the original part of the game took place. The environment is a stable element - in tennis we have either an outdoor or indoor environment.

That makes no sense. At Wimbledon, many players start their match in outdoor environment but end their match on a indoor environment due to rain. That is to say, many players do start and finish their match on different environment at Wimbledon. If Wimbledon matches can start outdoor and finish indoor... why can't they start indoor and finish outdoor? That's a double standard and makes no logic at all. It is a rule, and you have to accept it. But there is no logic behind that rule.
 
That makes no sense. At Wimbledon, many players start their match in outdoor environment but end their match on a indoor environment due to rain. That is to say, many players do start and finish their match on different environment at Wimbledon. If Wimbledon matches can start outdoor and finish indoor... why can't they start indoor and finish outdoor? That's a double standard and makes no logic at all. It is a rule, and you have to accept it. But there is no logic behind that rule.

Bolded: when they move a match "indoors" because of rain, they have no choice (or the only choice, depending how you word it).

When they have an indoor match, and it has to be continued in weather that permits two options, both are equally possible, logical and valid.

In the first case they will be deciding to continue the match in the "natural" for the history of the tournament conditions.

In the second case they will be deciding to continue the match in the same conditions as the first part of the match.

There is no "right" or "wrong" decision here, neither is the decision of the organisers "illogical", "unfair", "biased" etc.

:cool:
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Bolded: when they move a match "indoors" because of rain, they have no choice (or the only choice, depending how you word it).

When they have an indoor match, and it has to be continued in weather that permits two options, both are equally possible, logical and valid.

In the first case they will be deciding to continue the match in the "natural" for the history of the tournament conditions.

In the second case they will be deciding to continue the match in the same conditions as the first part of the match.

There is no "right" or "wrong" decision here, neither is the decision of the organisers "illogical", "unfair", "biased" etc.

:cool:
I never said "unfair" or "biased", Djokovic deserved 100% the victory. I said illogical.

Why did I say the rule is illogical? Because of the double standard fallacy:

Description: Judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/227/Double-Standard

If Wimbledon matches can start outdoor and finish indoor... why can't they start indoor and finish outdoor? That's a double standard and makes no logic at all. Either all matches can start and finish on different conditions or no single match should start and finish on different conditions.

It is a rule, and you have to accept it. But there is no logic behind that rule.
 
I never said "unfair" or "biased", Djokovic deserved 100% the victory. I said illogical.

Why did I say the rule is illogical? Because of the double standard fallacy:

Description: Judging two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/227/Double-Standard

If Wimbledon matches can start outdoor and finish indoor... why can't they start indoor and finish outdoor? That's a double standard and makes no logic at all. Either all matches can start and finish on different conditions or no single match should start and finish on different conditions.

It is a rule, and you have to accept it. But there is no logic behind that rule.

The two situations are different, but you want the organisers to reach a reciprocal solution, so that it looks like they are the same.

:cool:
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
The two situations are different, but you want the organisers to reach a reciprocal solution, so that it looks like they are the same.

:cool:
A rule should be universal, not only valid in some cases. The rule "a match can start and finish on different conditions" should be valid for all matches, not only some. Otherwise, it is using a double standard.
 
A rule should be universal, not only valid in some cases. The rule "a match can start and finish on different conditions" should be valid for all matches, not only some. Otherwise, it is using a double standard.

Did the organisers give their reasoning why they took the decision that they took?

:cool:
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Anderson is the one who got screwed, not Nadal. Anderson had to endure a 7h match in the semi's. If the other semi had been allowed to continue and ended up becoming a 5h, 5-set, tense baseline slugfest, maybe Djokovic's body (or Nadal's, had he won) would have been fatigued too (or even injured) for the final. And it would have been fair to both finalists.

Instead, Djokovic was gifted an easy physical semifinal match divided into to two short sessions, leaving him fresh for the final and Anderson not having a fighting chance to make it competitive.
 

Enceladus

Legend
That makes no sense. At Wimbledon, many players start their match in outdoor environment but end their match on a indoor environment due to rain. That is to say, many players do start and finish their match on different environment at Wimbledon. If Wimbledon matches can start outdoor and finish indoor... why can't they start indoor and finish outdoor? That's a double standard and makes no logic at all. It is a rule, and you have to accept it. But there is no logic behind that rule.

When it is raining, it is necessary to replace the outdoor environment in the hall if we want the match to continue without more interruption (to run even if it rains). It is not necessary to replace the indoor environment even when the weather is good. The indoor environment has the advantage of being protected from the negative weather effects. Ideal solution for organizers.
 

ADuck

Legend
When it is raining, it is necessary to replace the outdoor environment in the hall if we want the match to continue without more interruption (to run even if it rains). It is not necessary to replace the indoor environment even when the weather is good. The indoor environment has the advantage of being protected from the negative weather effects. Ideal solution for organizers.
Completely understand that. Still think the roof should be used only when necessary though, and the Wimbledon site says something very similar about the roof policy, but that was thrown out the window when met with unusual circumstances here. Still, I'll stick to my opinion that outdoor conditions when viable should take precedence over "continuity of conditions." It's a simple disagreement.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Nobody cares about the roof thing anymore guys, ffs

Forum is dead, bring on the tennis damnit. Even if it's only Canada
 
Top