SF: (2) Germain Gigounon (BEL) & Dan Smethurst CR 519 (283+236) defeated (ALT) Chris Haggard & Tyler Hochwalt (RSA/USA) CR 2457 (1497+960) by 4 & 3
As a matter of interest, CD, if Dan lost, why did you give the set scores the wrong way round? Surely it should've been 2-6 6-7(6)?
Because, the way I learned, when you're an umpire and you fill out the result sheet (by hand or enter it into the computer), you put the score that way round, as a winner. It's the rule, no exceptions. If you have free choice how to manually enter the players, you then normally put the winner first. But if it's a team match, say, the 'home' team player always goes first. Even if he lost. You then mark 'D' or 'V' (for defeat or victory) in the next box. And then put the score, with the 6 (or 7) first.
It's possible that other people have used different systems but that's the system I've always used. And when I did the exam that's how I had to do it. So it's now habit, I guess, just how I was taught.
As we were discussing the other day, CD, we have two camps on the forum in how they express GB player lost to Other player results and the two don't look likely to meet anytime soon.
I realise in this case you only said GB player loses 6-2 7-6(6), but the same principle applies, some will put 6-2 7-6(6) and some will put 2-6 6-7(6).
For a completed match, it really isn't a problem, 'lost' / 'loses' giving clarity. For a win by retirement a few extra words adds clarity to the scoreline.
Myself, I would express all sports results your way round, eg. QPR lost to Arsenal 2-1 rather than 1-2
But I have long accepted that SC and others prefer the other way round for tennis results. No doubt we will continue our separate ways with the occasional discussions about it.
I realise that during matches when updating scorelines we are more united in the forum in putting the GB player score first, but that makes sense for clarity and brevity : eg. James *2-4 vs Isner.
Oh, it makes no difference whatsoever to me, in reading them.
Each to their own, I reckon - it's always clear.
I was just explaining to SC why I do it that way.
In fact, I like steven's comment a while back, that he preferred the 'happy face' - 'sad face' approach, and just glanced down, 'eyeballing' the icons.