Jump to content

Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ben Jos (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 25 June 2010 (→Edit Request for inclusion of Matt Harvey poem: Reputable?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merge with Nicolas Mahut v. John Isner (2010)

They both seem to be about the same topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged the histories into this title since the other one wasn't that complicated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be "Mahut-Isner match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships" since the game in Wimbeldon is Mahut vs Isner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.172.167 (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Isner-Mahut", in alphabetical order, per the articles in Category:Tennis rivalries. —Lowellian (reply) 16:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total Match Time So Far?

What is the exact total time in term of minutes? can't seem to find it anywhere.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.32.50 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

598 minutes, iirc. (ETA: and 426 of that was the final set alone.) Insane. Morhange (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for details from the match itself for 'key moments'

It may be wise to collect as much information as possible regarding some of the key moments of the match and incorporate them into the article. I'm sure there are various blogs out there detailing the match very closely. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could help --KrebMarkt 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahut aces

Mahut has had 95 aces, not 94. There are numerous sources, including the Wimbledon website. Also see this. Enigmamsg 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wimbledon website here says 94. Half Price (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the Wimbledon website must be wrong. I watched him record #95, and the sources I've found agree. [1] [2] Enigmamsg 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm it is a tough one. You'd generally rely on the official website, but I think with so many sources disagreeing, we can probably say 95. Half Price (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, here are two British sources which agree as well: [3] [4]. Enigmamsg 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mahut has 95 aces, watch this video (time 4 mins 36 secs). The live score failed yesterday. After approaching 50 games all in final set the scoreboard was out of order and official live score on Wimbledon.com showed only 0-0. The duration of final set was also unavailable. Rl91 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Mahut indeed had 95 aces after the second day, despite what the earlier mentioned Wimbledon website article said. I remember Wimbledon's SlamTracker having 94 as well when the match was suspended after the second day. But when they resumed on the third day even Wimbledon's SlamTracker had Mahut's starting count as 95, not 94. Either way, there seems to be no disagreement about his total count, once the match was concluded. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent statistics

The "Receiving Points Won" lists "105 of 447 = 23%" and "95 of 459 = 21%" for a total of 447+459 906 points played. However the "Total Points Won" lists 449 and 428 which is only 878 points. At least one of these has to be incorrect. Mikeyo (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more deeply, for Mahut, we list 291 first serve points and 148 second serve points and 20 double faults, which totals 459, agreeing with the "Receiving Points Won" for Isner, For Isner we list 323 first serve points, 115 second serve points, and 9 double faults, also agreeing with the 447 receiving points for Mahut. So it seems that the "Total Points Won" line is more likely to be erroneous. Mikeyo (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your 878 points should be 877 but that's not the issue. We follow the source in External links: Match statistics from Wimbledon.org - except we say 95 aces by Mahut and they say 94 but other sources say 95 and this isn't the issue either. The real issue is that Wimbledon's official match statistics apparently don't include double faults by the opponent in Total Points Won. There has been 29 double faults in all which is the difference between your 906 and your other number which should have been 877. Excluding double faults appears odd to me but we should probably follow the official source. I haven't examined whether Wimbledon always does this (they did in the only other match I tested), or whether other tournaments also exclude them. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense for them not to include them as the player loses the point rather than the other player wins the point ClarkF1 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK/In the news

When the match (finally) comes to an end, it would quite good to put this forward for a Do You Know or an In The News item. Bob talk 08:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already listed and approved on WP:ITN/C. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 09:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Failures

On the wimbledon website, the match time froze at 507 minutes. It appears that it crashed at 507 minutes once the set five timer got to 333 minutes. Perhaps the counter couldn't handle more than 333 minutes.

The online scoreboard was reset to 0 when it hit 50 games each. An anonymous Wimbledon source advises that the "slamtracker" cannot handle more than 52 games and the decision was made at 48-48 to subtract 50 off the score when it got to 50.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.223.55 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The limit of 52 sets was due to the data protcol used by IBM. To minimise internet traffic, while keeping the data in an ASCII format, the set count was sent using a single lowercase or uppercase letter giving 52 values (0-51 sets). The "slamtracker" has been updated as as at day four of the championships, it is now reading beyond 60.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.223.55 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can back up that explanation with a cited reference, this would be great to add to the article!
Also, any idea why the physical scoreboard crashed after 47-47? It's weird; 48 isn't even a power of 2, and you would expect that a power of 2 is what it would crash on, due to bit overflow.
—Lowellian (reply) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48 is 32+16, though, so 1.5 times a power of 2 (in this case 32). So, maybe they used 6 bits for the number of games won, but (as some kind of parity/checksum check), only used that number if the highest 2 bits were not "11". Who knows? I'll bet it's something like that. They probably tried to save on the number of bits/bytes they have to transfer and decided that they did not want to waste even a "full bit" on parity/checksum, so they went for "a highest bit of 1 is valid if the next-highest bit is 0, but not valid if the next-highest is 1 as well". For 6 bits used in this fashion, that would result in something that amounts to 48 valid states, with only 48 out of 64 combinations of bits being valid. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New category

Shouldn't we create a category just for articles about a single tennis match. There doesn't seem to be a category right now so it might be helpful to make one. Remember (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there many other articles that would fit in the category? It sounds like a good idea. Half Price (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done: see Category:Tennis matches. —Lowellian (reply) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The 1973 Battle of the Sexes' might be the only other tennis match which has its own article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.203.66 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added Battle of Surfaces so there are now three matches. It's a shame there is no article about the 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles final. That deserved it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% there should be an article about the 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles Final due to the many elements involved (Generally regarded as the Greatest match of all time, between two of the greatest who ever lived, the clay court specialist prevailed, last match on roofless centre court ,etc, etc). Somebody should start one. Another suggestion for an article worthy match would be the Gonzalez - Pasarell match at the 1969 Wimbledon Championships as this match was the reason for the introduction of the tie-break —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.203.66 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a page for the Federer-Nadal match at 2008 Wimbledon Men's Singles final and already done a fair-sized write-up, focusing on background and significance. Please come help expand it, especially with details of the match itself! —Lowellian (reply) 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Removed a few violations regarding a NPOV. I was unsure whether or not the word "numerous" in the lead might have qualified as well, so I left it there and now ask someone to remove it if needed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the phrase 'long' twice. Is that really POV? In both cases it was true that they were much longer than the norm. Half Price (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at User:Ericleb01's edit at [5]: "Thrilling" is POV, yes. However, "long"/"lengthy" and "numerous" are factual, not POV. It is a statistical fact that the two matches described as "long" or "lengthy" were much lengthier than the norm for a tennis match, and thus User:MickMacNee (see diff [6]) and I (see diff [7]) have restored those two words. —Lowellian (reply) 16:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for image

If a free version turns up, we should use the one with the umpire, Mahut, and Isner standing next to the scoreboard. Enigmamsg 16:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that would be the ideal picture to put at the top of the article.  Burningview  ✉ 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Does anybody know why this match went on so long, it would be helpful for non-tennis experts if an explanation was given DjlnDjln (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no tiebreaker in the fifth set at Wimbledon for men's matches, so it keeps going until someone wins by two games. Since you alternate service games with the other player, you have to break your opponent to win. If you have two players serving very well and their return games are not up to snuff, it can keep going and going and going... Enigmamsg 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, both players had a very strong serve, which meant they both kept holding their serve games. Half Price (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said. :) Enigmamsg 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you did! My apologies :) Half Price (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
further while Wimbledon has made some changes that reduced the effect grass is traditionaly the fastest surface around making good serves even harder to counter.©Geni 22:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another very interesting point would be, for the same reason, and since it lasted so long, why and how did this match end?--195.57.146.182 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that interesting? I think it ended for the same one or more reasons any tennis match ends. Which can be any combination of a number of factors: (1) Because of injury of a player, (2) disqualification of a player, (3) forfeiture, (4) one player faltered enough (even if just for a short while) that the other player could take advantage (this could be due to fatigue, distraction, lack of skill, lack of experience, nervousness, and many other things), (5) luck (having to quickly react to a shot that hit the net, for example)... and so on. It was probably a combination of (4) and (5) in this case, but that is also the case in a most other matches, so it is the norm and not very interesting IMO. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis Single Game Infobox

I would suggest that we make a single game infobox similar to Template:NCAABasketballSingleGame for these types of articles. Any thoughts? Remember (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Could be easily converted. Maybe a sample should be posted here...Lajbi Holla @ me 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Celticninja, 24 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can you change UTC to GMT after the time. UTC is used when times of fractions of a second are required to be measured, this is not the case here.

Celticninja (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:. Actually UTC is the correct format, see WP:TIMEZONE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. GMT timezone == WET timezone (Western European Time) and is the sibling of the BST (British Summer Time) and WEST (Western European Summer Time). GMT clock is almost identical to UTC and Universal Time, but not quite. Officially legal time in Britain is still the GMT clock, but in practice everyone around the world now uses UTC to synchronize their clocks and all standards are defined relative to UTC. UTC is the convention that Wikipedia uses as well when discussing events. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

records

I guess it would be good to merge the first and last paragraph, as the same facts are mentioned twice in the same section. --81.151.98.17 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request for inclusion of Matt Harvey poem

Suggestion to include the haiku Matt Harvey, Wimbledon's official poet laureate, created to celebrate this match.

  • High performance play.
  • All day and yet no climax.
  • It's tantric tennis.

Link from NPR: [[8]] 74.103.41.149 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to ignore this request because it is obviously about sex, not tennis. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to me that the NPR link qualifies as reputable... wjmt (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More records?

Looking at The Official Wimbledon Statistics, I find it hard to believe that the records mentioned in the "Records" section of this article are the "only" ones that were broken. For instance, "Winners" (246 by Isner) and "Total Points Won" (502 by Mahut) are probably records too. But, I admit, that for these (and more) to be mentioned as records, we need references... 173.168.177.217 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more reactions

People should read this epic and hillarious live blog of this match at the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jun/23/wimbledon-2010-tennis-live

I hope someone will add it to the article. If necessary, numerous news articles on the web can be found commenting on that live blog by googling.

Lots of reaction collated by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8753437.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.219.72 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isner–Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships&oldid=370029284"