"All matches will be the best of three sets with the exception of the mens Singles final, which will be the best of five sets"
Winning Wimbledon proper means more than the Olympic Gold medal, imo. You have to win more sets per match in a larger field.
Though I do wonder if the timing will cause people to not give their all during wimbledon this year since the olympic games are going to be 3 weeks after Wimbledon finishes.
If they want it to matter then they gotta play best of 5 sets and have a field just as large.
Yeah I think it might bring out something in players to know that they are representing their country in an even larger global spotlight, but the fact is that in professional tennis the spotlight on Grand Slams is already pretty damn big. Throw in the fact that in every single match they are ALREADY representing their country. Everyone already knows what country the top pros are from because it says so next to their name in EVERY professional match they have EVER played.
I see little distinction between the gold medal event and wimbledon proper except for the fact that there will be less participants and they wont have to win as many sets to beat someone in a match.
And during the olympics typically the only people who will be tuning into the tennis matches will be the people who would watch tennis normally. Yeah they'll get a massive audience for the semis and finals when they get scheduled when nothing more popular is coming on, but that's it.
From: Kotetsu534 | #118 I see Radwanska won. Missed the match.
It was pretty boring.
Radwanska had a Wozniacki-like performance.
She played really safe, really consistent and got almost everything back and Sharapova just kind of melted away.
Wasn't a huge implosion of double faults or anything (in fact I think she didn't even have on until her last service game) but she still looked like the inexperienced one out there.
Which I just don't get.
-- Congratulations to Rafael Nadal on a Career Golden Slam. - The Mana Sword