How fair are today's sports?
I have always cheered vociferously for Goran Ivanisevic. Both in 1992 and in 1994 finals I had supported him tooth and nail in the finals. But luck did not favor him on both the ocassions. But 2001 was going to be his and he defeated Rafter in, what the reporters called, a "fairy tale finish". I vividly remember cheering the big serving croat in all his matches. However, the semifinal with Tim Henman has always bugged me.
On July 8th, 2004, Ivanisevic beat Henman 7-5, 6-7, 0-6, 7-6, 6-3. It was a sterling display of will and determination by Ivanisevich in the rain interrupted match. Ivanisevic had clearly won 3 sets and hence the match, but wait a minute. If one counted the number of games won, the tally is Ivanisevic:26 vs Henman:27. So who should have been the winner? Inspite of being a diehard Ivanisevic fan I feel Henman should have won the match.
Why are matches judged the way they are while scores are available at a more disaggregate level. Clearly Henman had won 27 games while Ivanisevic had won only 26. The logic follows. The current game gives equal credit to a player whether he loses a set 6-7 or 0-6 and that is zero. What kinds of rules are these? Whether it be lawn tennis, volleyball, badminton, table tennis, or any other game that involves sets, a player need not score more than his/her opponent to win the match. Why count sets when there are games and better still points to count. In a 500m race, the runner who finishes first is the winner. One does not care who led in each of the five 100m segments. I think, in any game, the total score units should be compared to determine the winner. For example, runs in cricket, goals in hockey and soccer, points in basketball, and touchdowns in rugby. This is a fair comparison. Then why should tennis, volleyball etc be judged in a different manner?
Just because someone, long back in time, played a game in a certain manner does not mean that we should blindly follow it. Games evolve and rules change over time. But this basic loophole in some games like tennis seems to be overlooked again and again. It is time the authorities take appropriate action so that the audience get to watch a fair match.
On July 8th, 2004, Ivanisevic beat Henman 7-5, 6-7, 0-6, 7-6, 6-3. It was a sterling display of will and determination by Ivanisevich in the rain interrupted match. Ivanisevic had clearly won 3 sets and hence the match, but wait a minute. If one counted the number of games won, the tally is Ivanisevic:26 vs Henman:27. So who should have been the winner? Inspite of being a diehard Ivanisevic fan I feel Henman should have won the match.
Why are matches judged the way they are while scores are available at a more disaggregate level. Clearly Henman had won 27 games while Ivanisevic had won only 26. The logic follows. The current game gives equal credit to a player whether he loses a set 6-7 or 0-6 and that is zero. What kinds of rules are these? Whether it be lawn tennis, volleyball, badminton, table tennis, or any other game that involves sets, a player need not score more than his/her opponent to win the match. Why count sets when there are games and better still points to count. In a 500m race, the runner who finishes first is the winner. One does not care who led in each of the five 100m segments. I think, in any game, the total score units should be compared to determine the winner. For example, runs in cricket, goals in hockey and soccer, points in basketball, and touchdowns in rugby. This is a fair comparison. Then why should tennis, volleyball etc be judged in a different manner?
Just because someone, long back in time, played a game in a certain manner does not mean that we should blindly follow it. Games evolve and rules change over time. But this basic loophole in some games like tennis seems to be overlooked again and again. It is time the authorities take appropriate action so that the audience get to watch a fair match.
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
why play cricket the way we r lets play it like tennis determining winner in evry 5 overs.
Hi ra Don,
Just happened to hit upon your article. Nice point but lets go a little deeper -- why stop at games won? why not count points won...
you see where it is going!!! It no longer looks like tennis but more like basketball or something. Why isn't a single tennis player complaining that Tennis is unfair? Because they know the
know it before hand that winning 6-0 is same as winning 6-4.
In a sense tennis is kinda balancing, slightly helping the loser to recover. You make a mistake in a point and that should not mean you should lose the whole game. It gives him/her a chance to get back (you make one wrong step in a 100mts dash thats it you are gone). Every game has its own charm and its own 'logic'
Ever wondered why only these net-games (Volley, tennis, badminton, tt ..) have these set rules.. Maybe there is something wrong with having a net inbetween ;)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home