On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:27:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis Post by Tony Cooper Post by Ken Blake
Yes, you could, but I couldn't. I know I'm unusual, but I find football
to be the most boring of all games. Yes, it takes around four hours, but
the average length of time the ball is in play is 12 minutes.
And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?
Are you suggesting watching a 4 hour chess match is exciting?
Post by Tony Cooper
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.
Uh, not in tennis I wouldn’t think, the time between points is short
and points can be quite long. Golf is mostly walking after the ball and
then looking at it, the time in motion is very short.
I've watched The Tennis Channel since last spring, and just
lately I was thinking about the question of time-in-play. It is
moderately small, for almost all matches.
They sometimes display who won the rallies of varying lengths.
Under 5 strokes and under 10 include most rallies. Those don't
take many seconds to play. Two seconds per shot would be slow
hitting, like "moon balls."
The "serve clock" before the first serve is 25 (or so) seconds,
and it usually gets below 5. The first serve gets into play more
than half the time, but there is no clock for the second serve.
There's a little extra padding between games and sets.
A fast set, 6-0 shutout with barely 5 points (say) per game
accounts for 30 "rallies" and not much more than 60 seconds
of play, but will take more than 20 minutes on the clock.
I discovered when I switched from tennis to squash (30
years ago) that 90 minutes of tennis matched 45 minutes of
squash, for my own exercise and hits on the ball. The squash
ball doesn't travel as far, and the enclosing walls of the court
mean that we take far less time to fetch the ball to start the
Post by Lewis Post by Tony Cooper
If you are going to count ball-in-play time only, then in golf the
walking to the ball, the practice swings, and the lining up of a putt,
don't count. In tennis, extended volleying is not that frequent. It's
a very slow game as far as action is concerned.
Not as slow as golf or NFL football I don't think.
Not that I think ball in motion of "action" has anything at all to do
with whether a sport is watchable or not. ALL sports are watchable if
you are interested in the sport, and any sport you are not interested in
is tedious and boring.
My brother-in-law who had played football saw things on TV that
sometimes the announcers would point out to the rest of us. He
saw a better game than I did.
I've watched enough tennis in recent months that I'm seeing the
games better, and I'm starting to anticipate the announcers, too.
On occasion. My own experience gives me some leg-up in
understanding strategies that were never part of my own slower-
speed game, except by accident.
Post by Lewis
** Said as someone who used to watch a lot of sports and now watches,
essentially, none. I did watch a couple of matches from the last
world cup and some of 2018 Wimbledon (maybe a total of 3 hours over
the two weeks, mostly the women's final).