egafd.com

Last score known at Wimbledon was 67-67a piece.

Why don't they just spin the racket to decide the winner and get it over with? lol

So it ended 70 - 68... thank fuck that's over. Whoever got through (I'm not interested enough in tennis to care) will probably lose 6-0 6-0 6-0 in he next round.

Yes but the irony is that the French guy who lost also won a 5 set quailfier in the 5th set 29-27 so he had some practice for this one !

Im a huge sports fan and am happy to watch any decent tennis match when its on, but seriously I cannot think of anything more tedious than an 11 hour tennis match - no breaks of serves, just two men knocking a tennis ball to each other for half a day. I think it actually makes a mockery of the sport - almost to the extent that once the score got to around the 30 game all mark, I suspect the two players decided to contrive a pantomime to drag it out and be 'noticed'.
Ive never understood the thinking behind the no tie breaks in the final set rule. Surely if you can win a match in three sets on tie breaks then the logic of not settling a match on a tie break is redundant? A tie break is designed to break a tie (call me Mr obvious) so it should be more apt toward the end of the match. At the very least have a 'cap' on the number of games in the last set..afterall in theory you could produce a match that never ends...and that really would be a joke!

Bob Singleton wrote:

> So it ended 70 - 68... thank fuck that's over. Whoever got
> through (I'm not interested enough in tennis to care) will
> probably lose 6-0 6-0 6-0 in he next round.

Exactly - they'll be too fucked to hold the racquet above their head without falling over backwards!