Dan led 5-2* but RCB eventually took the first set on a tiebreak, after lengthy rain delays. Dan edged a tough second set by breaking in the 11th game and saving 2 break back points to take it 7-5
It was a very, very long match. I'm not sure exactly how accurate the ATP figures are, but I wasted the largest part of my day watching. The DIY stuff will have to wait til next w/e!
L64: Roberto Carballés (ESP) WR 51 defeated (20) Daniel Evans WR 24 by 7-6(5) 5-7 6-4
Very close match, which lasted for just over three & three-quarter hours.
Was that the actual match time or the elapsed time with rain delays?
My comment was based on what was shown on the ATP web site. I assumed, therefore, that it was the actual playing time which took no account of any time lost to the weather. I have now checked the tournment web site & it shows "3H46'".
L64: Roberto Carballés (ESP) WR 51 defeated (20) Daniel Evans WR 24 by 7-6(5) 5-7 6-4
Very close match, which lasted for just over three & three-quarter hours.
Was that the actual match time or the elapsed time with rain delays?
My comment was based on what was shown on the ATP web site. I assumed, therefore, that it was the actual playing time which took no account of any time lost to the weather. I have now checked the tournment web site & it shows "3H46'".
Indeed- and Jose Morgado comments on how long it was in his twitter feed; brutally slow conditions he comments on as well
Yikes Glasspool Heliovaara squandering a big lead in the CTB to go out to Tiafoe and McDonald.
I think if this thread had singles in the title it would easier to spot that it isnt for doubles. It is easy to get it confused, I would suggest, SC.
being honest, Im still it convinced why we have separate threads for singles and doubles at some events, I know the arguments but am still a long way from being convinced we need it - no one is that sensitive that we cant just have one thread for a given event!? But weve been over it before so we are where we are !
That sounds like a good idea, Jon, to say put 'singles only' in threads for tournaments where there is also a doubles thread.
Personally otherwise I probably prefer separate doubles threads for Masters tournaments with the significant number of GB entries we have. And indeed I definitely think it's best for Slams to have separate doubles threads.
Let's help people rather than unnecessarily call out folk who post info but 'dare' to post in the 'wrong' thread.
That sounds like a good idea, Jon, to say put 'singles only' in threads for tournaments where there is also a doubles thread.
Personally otherwise I probably prefer separate doubles threads for Masters tournaments with the significant number of GB entries we have. And indeed I definitely think it's best for Slams to have separate doubles threads.
Let's help people rather than unnecessarily call out folk who post info but 'dare' to post in the 'wrong' thread.
That sounds like a good idea, Jon, to say put 'singles only' in threads for tournaments where there is also a doubles thread.
Personally otherwise I probably prefer separate doubles threads for Masters tournaments with the significant number of GB entries we have. And indeed I definitely think it's best for Slams to have separate doubles threads.
Let's help people rather than unnecessarily call out folk who post info but 'dare' to post in the 'wrong' thread.
Yes, I'd agree
My 2.5p worth:
(a) I like doubles only threads where there's lots of entrants
(b) the singles thread should have 'SINGLES ONLY' on it (to be helpful)
(c) the doubles thread should have DOUBLES, maybe in bold - i.e. something to make it stand out a bit more, it gets lost