LukasMcNeal Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Personally I chose roddick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Were you not watching? Federer won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikeperson45 Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Were you not watching? Federer won.The questions who deserved to win, pointless question now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nick Riviera Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 No way, winning fairly is unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basher Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 they both deserved to win, its not like one of them comitted rape and murder to get to the final so the other deserves more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 If Roddick had played better, he would have won! It's the nature sport, you set some rules to make it fair, then play to find out whos the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nick Riviera Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Subnote - tennis is a terrible idea and quite why the whole thing has to be televised is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Never got into tennis despite my dad constantly watching all the tournaments on TV and doing the engraving work at Wimbledon for as long as I've been around. All I enjoy about tennis is the green lawn. It looks sooo nice, I'd love to have one in my room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hitcher Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Tonsil tennis is where the real pros go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Ward Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Subnote - tennis is a terrible idea and quite why the whole thing has to be televised is beyond me.QFT!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Shucksmith Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 QFT!!!!!!!!!!+1. Tennis is about as entertaining as watching paint dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich J Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Playing tennis is alot less boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Personally I chose roddick.Surely with you choosing it makes it who you wanted to win not who deserved it? They were playing for over 4 hours and roddick just wasn't good enough to creep ahead after that long. After 4 hours Foderer deserved to win as he was better than the other guy, which was shown by the fact he won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdoku Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Federer. There's no who deserves, I bet a lot of people thought Murray deserved to win against Roddick too, but nope, Roddick was just better and Federer was the better player in this case so he wins.I don't like the hawk eye system either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusevelt Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Yeah that was a bit weird the way Roddick gave that away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdoku Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Yeah that was a bit weird the way Roddick gave that away.I didn't watch the match, if you thought I did. I just don't like it in general, I don't see how even if a slight edge of the tennis ball is on the white line in hawk eye counts as in. Surely it would be where the ball lands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich J Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I didn't watch the match, if you thought I did. I just don't like it in general, I don't see how even if a slight edge of the tennis ball is on the white line in hawk eye counts as in. Surely it would be where the ball lands.It is where the ball lands? Hawkeye represents the play... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdoku Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 It is where the ball lands? Hawkeye represents the play...But the ball isn't like a square where the top and bottom has the same width, on a ball the widest part is right in the middle, it's diameter. So when the hawk eye shows literally just the edge of the ball (the edge of the black circle in hawk eye) is within the white line, that must mean the ball must compress by as much as half to its diameter for the hawk eye to be correct. And I really don't think the tennis ball compresses that much to its diameter. That or I'm just talking a load of BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Booth Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Surely with you choosing it makes it who you wanted to win not who deserved it? They were playing for over 4 hours and roddick just wasn't good enough to creep ahead after that long. After 4 hours Foderer deserved to win as he was better than the other guy, which was shown by the fact he won.Agree with mr boats really. Federer had ther stamina, and experience to keep his cool over Roddick. Roddick just couldn't go the extra to keep up with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukasMcNeal Posted July 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 But the ball isn't like a square where the top and bottom has the same width, on a ball the widest part is right in the middle, it's diameter. So when the hawk eye shows literally just the edge of the ball (the edge of the black circle in hawk eye) is within the white line, that must mean the ball must compress by as much as half to its diameter for the hawk eye to be correct. And I really don't think the tennis ball compresses that much to its diameter. That or I'm just talking a load of BS.I get you! I've also been thinking this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich J Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I dont really get what your saying, im too tired to understand. But i can imagine the compression of a tennis ball being pretty immense especially at the speeds they play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdoku Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I dont really get what your saying, im too tired to understand. But i can imagine the compression of a tennis ball being pretty immense especially at the speeds they play.Basically the hawk eye system is only correct up to a certain point in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.