The challenge system, which is now used in all Grand Slams and also in the larger tournaments, is, by all accounts, popular with most players and fans. But NBC commentator Mary Carrillo has a complaint about it, and I agree with her: Carrillo does not like limiting each player to three challenges (with extra challenges in the tiebreak). As you know, each time a player is wrong in a challenge, she loses that challenge. So if she is wrong three times, she loses all of her challenges. If she is right three times, she still has three challenges left.
Carrillo argues that a player should get all the challenges she wants, and I make the same argument. Though it may add some element of excitement for fans to see players lose their challenges, such an arrangement does not support the professional process; i.e., that pro tennis players are both making a living and striving to do the best they can do. The Hawkeye system is a great innovation; therefore, use it. The presumption of the current system is that players would abuse it if allowed to, and that is another way of saying "These professionals are not really professional." If players are expected to show up for tournaments, press conferences and personal appearances, then they should also be expected to judiciously utilize a challenge system.
To make matters worse, the line callers' accuracy percentage is not very good. I was stunned to hear Pam Shriver (I know--I should never be stunned by anything that comes out of Shriver's mouth) say last year that the line callers did a great job--they were right 70% of the time! In fact, during last year's U.S. Open series, stats kept for a week showed that the line callers were right only 65% of the time.
65 and 70% are pretty poor percentages. Let players use Hawkeye.
No comments:
Post a Comment