Anybody else think the retractable roof for Wimbledon isn't such a hot idea? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Anybody else think the retractable roof for Wimbledon isn't such a hot idea?

CarnivalCarnage
07-04-2004, 03:25 PM
Let's not pretend it will speed things up. I can see the use for it in the very late rounds where it sucks to have semifinal day rained out, or the final delayed in progress. But in the early rounds, it will barely alleviate the schedule crunch caused by the constant rain. But worst of all, the question of favoritism will arise. Because it's Center Court getting the roof, the best players will have the advantage over the also-rans because they'll be the ones playing their matches on Center while everybody else waits out the rain. It wouldn't be fair to see someone like Roddick into the next round two days before his opponent.

The best solution is to move the tournament to Key Biscayne. Butch Buchholz will take over your world.

Neely
07-04-2004, 03:36 PM
of course you are right with the points you make, but everybody knows that in advance.

Only complete indoor events have a roof over all courts, and most "outdoor" events only have a retractable roof above the biggest court. And it works at other tournaments, so I don't see why it shouldn't work in Wimbledon as well.

CarnivalCarnage
07-04-2004, 03:47 PM
of course you are right with the points you make, but everybody knows that in advance.

Only complete indoor events have a roof over all courts, and most "outdoor" events only have a retractable roof above the biggest court. And it works at other tournaments, so I don't see why it shouldn't work in Wimbledon as well.

But ... it really doesn't work at other tournaments. The issue of favoritism is just as valid elsewhere. But the difference is that in Australia that doesn't matter so much because it rarely rains. But this is Wimbledon. It always rains. That is part of the tournament. When you allow a few highly ranked players to bypass that it could be a big problem.

All that said, it would be wonderful for TV, and less annoying for the fans.

Socket
07-04-2004, 07:06 PM
There are two principal purposes to a roof on the main court. It prevents you from having to refund tickets for those ticket-holders with the expensive tickets because you get the matches finished, and it accommodates television, so they have something to show during the scheduled time. It absolutely does not produce scheduling efficiency, especially during the first week, because you can't get enough matches finished under the closed roof to substantially relieve the backlog. Wimbledon's powers-that-be apparently think those two reasons are worth the expense. Personally, I would think that the money is better spent on the juniors program, so a few years from now, some young guy can replace Henman as the object of a nation's passion for two weeks, but whatever.

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 09:41 AM
Did nothing to address the unfairness of such a set up there.

*SKYE*
07-05-2004, 12:32 PM
i think its a good idea.... it pisses me off soooo much to see wimbledon washed out because of the rain!

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 01:22 PM
i think its a good idea.... it pisses me off soooo much to see wimbledon washed out because of the rain!

It really would be hardly different though.

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 04:28 PM
Well wet Junes are reknowned in United Kingdom so perhaps move it to beggining of July?? but then there would have to be rescheduling of other events and cause a big hassle.

I think have the roof, but to be used from quarter finals stages as when 2 great players are head to head a rain delay often influences the outcome, other time to use the roof is when it gets to 5pm and still no play all day due to constant downpour.

Well then why be selective with it at all?

Frooty_Bazooty
07-05-2004, 04:51 PM
the main point of the roof is that there will always be a match on that can be put on tv. and for that reason i think it will be worth it.

also it must be horrible for people who come over to wimbledon for a day from foreign countries and then dont get to see a single match, at least this way they can.

Lalitha
07-06-2004, 06:55 AM
For everything that has happend, this Wimbledon will be remembered best for rain delays and the washouts. They should get the roof done rather quickly. And it should be for atleast 2-3 courts. No use in having it for only one court alone.

btw, they have said that roof would be done only by 2007, isn't it?

*Ljubica*
07-06-2004, 07:04 AM
For everything that has happend, this Wimbledon will be remembered best for rain delays and the washouts. They should get the roof done rather quickly. And it should be for atleast 2-3 courts. No use in having it for only one court alone.

btw, they have said that roof would be done only by 2007, isn't it?

They are saying 2009 now Lalitha. And I tend to agree with CarnivalCarnage - remember the rows caused at the US Open last year when everyone had delayed matches but Roddick sailed through because he was always scheduled for the night match and it seemed to stop raining at night? It wasn't fair on the other players and they had a right to complain, - and - yes I can see the same thing happening at Wimbledon too. Unless, of course, the roof was used only for semis and the Finals to guarantee play for TV schedules and ticket holders who had bought expensive tickets - and that would be a ridiculous waste of the money spent to build it.

Lalitha
07-06-2004, 07:20 AM
what,2009?????? - Any chance they will postpone even after that?

About the USO last year, yes everybody complained and some players were sarcastic about that 'strange & remarkable coincidence' that Andy and Agassi got to finish off their matches. They were only drying the courts on which these two players were playing and not all courts. Can't they get covers atleast, like Wimbledon. It was very very ugly seeing some 20 ball kids with some cloth in their hands and drying the courts.

About the ticket money, Wimbledon refunds the money only if play is suspended on all courts. If there is play in any one of the courts(where you don't have tickets for) the money will not be refunded.

CarnivalCarnage
07-06-2004, 08:07 AM
For everything that has happend, this Wimbledon will be remembered best for rain delays and the washouts. They should get the roof done rather quickly. And it should be for atleast 2-3 courts. No use in having it for only one court alone.

btw, they have said that roof would be done only by 2007, isn't it?

Nobody will remember the rain in a few years. But you will remember the winner.

CarnivalCarnage
07-06-2004, 08:09 AM
About the ticket money, Wimbledon refunds the money only if play is suspended on all courts. If there is play in any one of the courts(where you don't have tickets for) the money will not be refunded.

Why would that be a problem? How often are some matches suspended and not others?

silverwhite
07-06-2004, 09:35 AM
Like what CarnivalCarnage said, it would be unfair to the other players. My suggestion is that they let the players who have already lost to put up exhibition matches so that they would not have to refund the spectators and the TV stations have something to broadcast.

Lalitha
07-06-2004, 10:29 AM
Why would that be a problem? How often are some matches suspended and not others?

The men's final was suspended and the men's doubles final was being played at Court no.1 But this does'nt happens frequently though, but if I was in centre court with no play, whereas there was play in court 12,13 etc. I don't get my money back.

CarnivalCarnage
07-06-2004, 11:06 AM
The men's final was suspended and the men's doubles final was being played at Court no.1 But this does'nt happens frequently though, but if I was in centre court with no play, whereas there was play in court 12,13 etc. I don't get my money back.

And that'll never happen. They didn't suspend the men's doubles final because it wasn't raining very hard. It was raining hard enough to stop the singles final because they care more about it. But it was never going to be too much rain to halt play all day. When you get that kind of rain, nobody is playing. So I don't give that "problem" much credence.

Besides, there was play on Center Court so it doesn't apply there anyway.

Experimentee
07-08-2004, 05:51 PM
I can see how it would be unfair, but they have a much bigger obligation to the paying visitors who want to see at least some tennis, and the tv stations. With a roof the big advantage would be that there would always be play whatever the weather, so the tv stations gain, they have to pay less refunds, and the visitors gain by getting to see tennis. So the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages.

CarnivalCarnage
07-08-2004, 05:57 PM
I can see how it would be unfair, but they have a much bigger obligation to the paying visitors who want to see at least some tennis, and the tv stations. With a roof the big advantage would be that there would always be play whatever the weather, so the tv stations gain, they have to pay less refunds, and the visitors gain by getting to see tennis. So the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages.

Experimentee, I don't know about your math.

The roof would be on Center. You can only view matches on Center with tickets expressly for it. Most people who attend Wimbledon do not have those tickets. The roof won't matter to them.

It does indeed work out well for television.

And as for paying refunds ... most people just take the raincheck and come back the next day.

Experimentee
07-09-2004, 03:20 PM
Experimentee, I don't know about your math.

The roof would be on Center. You can only view matches on Center with tickets expressly for it. Most people who attend Wimbledon do not have those tickets. The roof won't matter to them.

It does indeed work out well for television.

And as for paying refunds ... most people just take the raincheck and come back the next day.

Yes I'm aware that you need separate tickets for Centre. Of course you cant let every single person see tennis during the rain, but letting only some people see tennis is an improvement.
I'm not sure about it having much of an impact on the tournament though. Imagine if the whole first day at Wimbledon was rained out. In a day's play there will be about 5 matches on Centre Court, so thats 5 players, out of both the mens and womens tournaments, having an advantage out of the 128 remaining players, and thats not very much when you consider the advantages.

WyveN
07-09-2004, 03:24 PM
Even if it improves the situation from quarter finals onwards, it will be worth it

CarnivalCarnage
07-09-2004, 03:24 PM
Yes I'm aware that you need separate tickets for Centre. Of course you cant let every single person see tennis during the rain, but letting only some people see tennis is an improvement.
I'm not sure about it having much of an impact on the tournament though. Imagine if the whole first day at Wimbledon was rained out. In a day's play there will be about 5 matches on Centre Court, so thats 5 players, out of both the mens and womens tournaments, having an advantage out of the 128 remaining players, and thats not very much when you consider the advantages.

Yeah, I know the advantages.

But the problem is not three or four players having an advantage over the rest of the field. The problem is they would be the best players, and more than likely, players of the host country.

But it'll go through anyway. I guess it's about time the sport of tennis learned how to conquer rain.