raquets and bats

Spent all day yesterday at the Mondial Women's Hardcourts tennis tournament today. I'm a long time follower of televised tennis tournaments, but have never been to a match. So I got myself a day/night pass to catch the four singles quarter final matches and two doubles quarter finals matches. The stars on show included Nicole Vaidisova, Dinara Safina, Patty Schnyder and Shahar Peer, though the major drawcard of the tournament was Amelie Mauresmo. The weather was wet and dodgy, but the main court was under cover so play could progress as per usual (unlike Wimbledon, which seems to have rain delays left, right and centre). There was a decent crowd turn out as well (parking was a pain), possibly something to do with the fact that this is the last time that the tournament is to be held at Royal Pines Resort, as of next year it will be merged with the men's equivalent and played in the new State Tennis Centre in Tennyson.


Hmm, so what did I think of my first live tennis experience? Firstly, the crowd was more like that at a ballet or play or something rather than that of the cricket. Play was silent, all you could hear was the sounds of the players, and applause and the odd call from the crowd only ever came after a point was completed. People leaving waited for a break in play, and people coming back waited for a break before returning to their seats. All of the heads in the crowd were in sync, looking left, then right, then left again, following the ball. I took a lot of photos, most of them look the same though as all were taken from the same angle - from my seat. Would have loved to be able to move around and get different angles. Flash photography was not permitted for obvious reasons, as it distracted the players. Not that it was required at all, lighting was great, even in the overcast weather. My spot wasn't that bad, about 8 rows back and about a quarter of the way in, so one player would be straight ahead of me while the other was to my right.


The crowd appeared to mainly consist of people either in the 40-100 or 5-12 age bracket. I think some of the kids, dragged along by their parents, got a bit bored of it all, though they managed to keep quiet. They were provided with a little excitement though, with the winner of each match signing three tennis balls and hitting them up into the stands, one woman in the row in front of me got one. Actually, now that I think about it, a lot of the kids had those big oversized tennis balls, which were covered in autographs. I guess its harder for the players to say no to kids when they ask for a signature.

I had a good time. It was a long day though and I left after the fifth match (the Schnyder vs Mauresmo blockbuster) as it was late and rainy and I was exhausted. Definitely worth the $50 for the day. Got to see some good quality tennis played by some of the stars of the women's game, and I'm really looking forward to the two days of the Australian Open I'll be attending in ten days' time. Also, I've decided that being a ballboy would be fun. I think I'm a bit old for that (ballman just isn't as appealing unfortunately), so I guess when/if I have kids I'll have to live through them and train them up to be ballkids.

Keeping on the topic of sport (its been a while), I just wanted to raise an issue in cricket which got raised again yesterday - if you get out (ie you nick the ball to the keeper) and know you should be out, and the umpire calls not out, do you walk? Andrew Symonds should've been out at 30 and went on to make 162 not out, and Ricky Ponting also went on after edging the ball on 17. Some other cases have involved a catch which isn't really a catch - where the ball has hit the ground just before being caught but being awarded as a dismissal. We've seen Adam Gilchrist walk when he knows he's out and as a result being branded as man with true sportsmanship (but then again there was also the squash ball controversy, but we won't go there...), but the big question is, should you walk?

I'm a fence sitter on this one. In the argument for walking, its an honesty thing - you know you're out fair and square, so if you don't walk or don't tell the umpire that you don't think you caught the ball cleanly you're pretty much being a cheat, right? What kind of example are these top players giving to the younger fans?

On the other hand, in the argument against walking, there are times that you weren't really out and yet the umpire says out. Umpires aren't perfect, we all know that, its part of the game. Part of any game really. Anyway, surely if this luck can work against you, it should be okay for it to work in your favour too and always accept the official's decision as final? I do believe that one time Gilly walked when he actually clearly missed the ball. You get good and bad decisions, and they should even each other out in the long run. And why do it when no one else does it, that makes things a bit unfair, doesn't it?

Third option - bring in some technology to help the umpires make better decisions. Though that's a whole issue of its own. Ahh, controversy is what brings sport to life, brings some real drama into it...