definitely should have been a double fault for delpot at 4-2 in the 4th set tie-break allowing fed the mini break back.
why on earth do you reply the point when the second serve was clearly out on hawk eye. there is no need to replay. the ball was out, point over, and its 3-4 on rogers serve.
might not have changed anything in the end, but it is important none the less
No, it was not a second serve. The first serve was a lets (meaning it clipped the net but landed in). So the next serve that DelPo faulted on was a first serve.
definitely should have been a double fault for delpot at 4-2 in the 4th set tie-break allowing fed the mini break back.
why on earth do you reply the point when the second serve was clearly out on hawk eye. there is no need to replay. the ball was out, point over, and its 3-4 on rogers serve.
might not have changed anything in the end, but it is important none the less
thegreatNEb 2 years ago
No, it was not a second serve. The first serve was a lets (meaning it clipped the net but landed in). So the next serve that DelPo faulted on was a first serve.
synergee 2 years ago