Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Quirky scoring rules of tennis
?I think Carl makes a great point here:
...and lets close matches take all the time they need
I LOVE five hour matches involving two of the big three. Can't get enough of them. And a 75 minute drubbing one of star player and one overmatched opponent is about as long as those should last. Could we get to the same point with a "first to 200?" or some such. I'd like to see someone go through that. I don't know if it's 200 or 250 or whatnot.
Does the quirky rules help give us what we want, or can we simply get there anyway with a simple "first to 200?", and we are simply giving the illusion that the quirky rules help.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 150 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date
FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 MarcelsApr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref
Apr 12 09:43 What if baseball was like survivor? You are eliminated ...
Nov 24 09:57 Win Attribution to offense, pitching, and fielding at the game level (prototype method)
Jul 13 10:20 How to watch great past games without spoilers