Tennis at Wimbledon is Difficult to Learn

C and I were watching the Men's semifinals at Wimbledon yesterday afternoon.  It was a match between Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic and it promised to be a good match.  Even C was interested in watching this.  And as we were watching, C was immediately fascinated by the score at the top left of the ESPN box.  Showing the names, the game score, and the set score, it seemed to be just a jumble of numbers that made little sense to a mind that was used to seeing baseball scores.  He grew so curious that he started to ask me questions.

"Dad, who do you want to win?"  He asked, obviously priming me for more difficult questions later on.  Without hesitation, I answered that I wanted Roger Federer to win the match.  He was the underdog and the elder statesman of the tournament.  Of course I wanted him to win.

"Dad what does the score 40-15 mean at the top of the screen there?  What does Ad mean when it replaces the score?"  I then talked to him about how games in Tennis were played.  I think that it just got him more confused.  "So if a player has zero, they call it love?  That's stupid!"

"So if Federer wins this game, then he goes on to the Championship?"  Not quite, I tell him.  If he wins a game, that is merely one game in one set.  They have a lot of games to play.  I go on to explain that these guys are trying to win sets by being the first to 6 games while still winning by two games.

That answer really didn't help since he now quizzed me about sets and how those are scored.  "So they they are trying to win the Set?" I tell him that tennis players try to win sets and that they need to win three sets out of 5 in order to win the match.

"But wait, Serena Williams only won two sets and she went on to the championship."  I explain that women have to win 2 sets and men have to win 3 sets.  I pretend that all tournaments work this way even though most men's tournaments go the best of 3 sets too.  We won't be watching that tennis though.

C then examines the results from the previous day.  This is when things get interesting. "Dad, why did that guy win a set by winning 7 games, I thought he has to win 6 games to win a set?"  I explain to him that to win a set you have to win by 2 games.  "But that guy won the set 7-6, Dad..."  Shaking my head at this point I try to patiently explain that if two opponents are tied at 6 then they play a tiebreaker.  I cross my fingers hoping that he doesn't ask me about the rules pertaining to tie breakers.  I think it will make my head and C's head explode.  But instead he asks me an even better question.

"But Dad, what about that time two years ago when those two guys played that set that you talked about where one guy beat the other 61-59?  Good one.  I tell him that at Wimbledon and certain other tournaments, the last set has to go until one player wins by two and that there is no tie breaker. 

C looks at the TV screen and continues watching the match.  Federer is leading.  "You know a lot about tennis, Dad.  Were you good before you got old?"

"Do you want to go to the baseball field"  I finally say.  There, the rules are a lot easier to understand.

Why I am up Watching the Australian Open

Work needs to get done.  Insomnia.  Doppelganger freaking me out.  The wife is snoring.  The kids and visiting dog are crying.  A shooting pain down the back makes it impossible to sleep.  Why is one up at 3 in the morning?  Those are my usual reasons.  Normally, this is harbinger of bad luck - being up this early.  Except for a brief period of time in January and February when, even at the most ridiculous hours, live sports may be found.

I admit that I like tennis.  I really don't get a chance (or should I say that I am not permitted) to watch sports live or on TV very often, so I usually keep it to the big three - Baseball, Football and Basketball.  It's much easier to pretend that a game in one of those sports is important.  Either for standings or for betting.

It's tougher to justify with tennis.  No one in their right mind bets on professional tennis (golf I can somewhat understand, but professional tennis? Please seek help if you bet on tennis, I'm sure Nikolay Davydenko did.)  And I am usually called onto the carpet if I pretend that a match is important.  But the important tennis tournaments offer a unique opportunity.  The French Open and Wimbledon are usually played early in the morning on the East Coast.  The U.S. Open plays late matches under the Flushing lights.  And in January, when I can't sleep?  It's just me and the Hitachi watching tennis from Down Under.  I'm not sure how many hours ahead Australia is, all I know is that when it is dark here, it's light there.  I also think that if some someone is coming home from the bars down there and drunk dials, they will be calling right after the dialing respondent gets back from lunch.  Nevertheless, this is a perfect way to kill some time.

3am.  Home.  I'm not sure why they are playing the first match.  Roger Federer vs. some guy named "Hanescu" in the Second Round.  I don't bother trying to find out anything about this guy, including his first name.  I wonder to myself how many games Federer is going to give up here.  6? 7?  He might be distracted trying to cover up his own tracks as his (former) Gillette buddy is spending time in "rehab" in Mississippi.  You know they went out to the clubs when Tiger was in Europe.  Maybe 10 games? 12?  Perhaps we should ask Prince William what he thinks since it appears that he is sitting in one of the front rows.  How do I know?  They KEEP showing him!  It's happening so often after points that I'm beginning to think he's one of the player's boyfriends.

In the end, Federer won 6-2, 6-3, 6-2.  Shortly after the match, while being interviewed, former American tennis great Jim Courier points in the direction of Prince William and favorably (I guess) compares Federer with Prince William as both cover their faces in horror and embarrassment (those asshole Americans, they both must be thinking).

5am.  Home.  We are then treated to 5 minutes of Taylor Dent getting his American butt whipped in straight sets.  Well done!  But wait.  Things are happening fast and furious now as ESPN immediately cuts to Spaniard Fernando Verdasco also winning in straight sets.  Two hours of tennis, three blowouts.

5:15am.  Home.  Bummer.  Live tennis has taken a back seat so ESPN can replay Venus Williams against an opponent named Bammer.  I'm not kidding about the name.  I go onto the Internet to see that Williams destroyed Bammer in straight sets also.  Yawn.  Then another replay, this time of Lleyton Hewitt against an American named Donald Young.  No need to tell you what happened there, either.  Checking the scores, I see that live tennis is being played, yet they are showing replays of yesterday's matches.  No one is watching anyway ESPN just put the live sports on!  Please?

6:00am  Home.  No dice on live tennis.  I see that the next match after Venus Williams plays features her sister Serena Williams.  Since ESPN just groups their stories as "Williams Sisters Do This" and "Williams Sisters Do That..." I already know what happened in with Serena Williams.  Maybe I'm just not motivated to discover, when I'm watching sports from overseas late at night, that they are simply replaying the previous days' matches.  I could be watching golf or life coaching infomercials right now. 

6:30am.  Home.  Visions of tennis balls and hardcourts start dancing through my head.  I guess it's time to head back to bed.  That's okay, the Federer match will probably be on again when I wake up.