Cameron Norrie vs Nicolas Jarry: Score and latest Wimbledon updates
'It's a great match to play, I'm excited for it,' said Norrie. 'I think he's one of the most dangerous players on the tour when he's confident, and he is confident. He beat Holger in a crazy match. I think he looks like a guy with nothing to lose. He's so dangerous. He's got one of the best serves on tour. I think he likes the grass a lot. I'm going to have to really raise my level from how I played [in round three].'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Bring back human line judges, Wimbledon
Wimbledon may seem the last place to act as a backdrop to science fiction. But the fact is in the home of strawberries, cream and Sir David Beckham on the front row of the Royal Box we are seeing unfold this fortnight a narrative that might well serve as the starting point for the next iteration of the Terminator franchise. On the crisp lawns of the All England Club we are in the midst of a battle between humanity and the computer. In SW19 there is a growing rage against the machines. This year it was decided to dispense with line judges. The problem, we were told, is they made mistakes. And computers apparently don't. So never mind that, in their smart Ralph Lauren blazers, the lovely old humans add to the colour of the event, never mind that part of the fun is seeing them swerve at the last moment to avoid a 130mph Jannik Sinner serve, they were to be replaced by something called Electronic Line Calling. Error was to be removed. Everything was to become unequivocal. Trust the machine, we were told, and it will get it right. The pursuit of perfection in adjudication has been an ambition of Wimbledon's ever since John McEnroe erupted on No 1 Court back in 1981. McEnroe's beef that day was simple: his eyesight was better than the umpire's. He could see his shot was on the line, even as it was called out. 'You cannot be serious,' he whined, delivering the comment that will doubtless serve as his epitaph. This was human error exposed: a wrong call horribly skewing the course of the match. Then, in 2007, it seemed such disputes were behind us. Hawk-Eye was introduced, a piece of camera technology used in cricket that tracked the ball and could decide on its trajectory. Players were entitled to challenge a line judge's call and Hawk-Eye would act as the court of appeal. The process became part of the fun, the crowd clapping as the animation was played on the court's scoreboard, cooing in delight at its analysis. And this hybrid system served to everyone's satisfaction. It was reckoned essentially foolproof. Research has estimated that human line judges get around eight per cent of calls wrong. As my colleague Simon Briggs wrote at the weekend, if humans are around 92 per cent accurate, and robots 98 per cent accurate, then both should be 99.84 per cent accurate. That, however, was not deemed enough for the Wimbledon authorities. They decided to go entirely robot. Get rid of the human bit and argument would be redundant. There was just one problem: what if the robots weren't as good as we assumed? What if the disembodied AI voices were too quiet to be properly heard? What if the machines got it wrong? Across all the courts this year, we have seen players stand looking bemused at calls, if not channelling their inner McEnroe then at least wondering why, given their eyesight is generally magnificent, they cannot believe what they are seeing. Time and again, we have seen mechanical calls that have just looked wrong, just ask Jack Draper and Emma Raducanu. Less Artificial Intelligence more Artificial Myopia. And if they are in doubt, the players have no recourse. There is no challenge system. Instead on the scoreboard will come up a Hawk-Eye animation of a 'close call'. But given the Hawk-Eye and the computer are working from the same data, the result is always the same. 'It's kind of disappointing,' said Raducanu earlier this week, 'that the calls can be so wrong.' The nadir came when the new British hope Sonay Kartal was playing Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova on Sunday on Centre Court. A Kartal shot landed so far beyond the line it was practically in Clapham. Pavlyuchenko, seeing it clearly fall in the wrong place, returned before looking to the umpire to intervene. But no disembodied call came from the machines. And the umpire, apparently now required always to follow what AI instructs, did not intervene, rule it was out and give the point to the Russian. Instead, to much bemusement all round, he stopped play, eventually ruling the point be played again. This time, Kartal won it. As it happened, the overall result was not affected: Pavyluchenko won the match. But that could have been the moment technology completely altered destiny. And it simply would not have happened under the old system. A line judge would have had to be singularly incompetent not to have seen what happened. With a magnificent irony, the Wimbledon authorities later blamed 'human error' for the mistake. Apparently the machinery had been inappropriately switched off. But that is not the point. If you rely on machines instead of humanity, if you surrender to 'Skynet' as they did in the days of Terminator, you are inevitably prone to malfunction. Besides, the fact is, human error is an integral part of sport. Jeopardy is a central tenet to our enjoyment. Part of the attraction of Rory McIlroy is because he fluffs his chances. Centre Court is in a growing love affair with Carlos Alcaraz partly because he makes mistakes. He is human, not a machine. Just as VAR is sucking the joy from football in the vain attempt to eliminate error, what is happening across Wimbledon right now is final proof that technology is no saviour. Let's hope this fortnight marks the end of the experiment and next year we see the line judges properly restored to their position, crouching behind the baseline. Because the result from Wimbledon is clear: Humans 1 Machines 0.
The Sun
32 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fluminense vs Chelsea: Get £20 football free bets and 50 free spins with Midnite
CHELSEA clash with Brazilian outfit Fluminense for a place in the 2025 Club World Cup final. And online sports betting platform Midnite are marking the occasion with a dynamite welcome offer for brand new customers! New Midnite punters can get £20 in free bets, plus an additional 50 free spins to use in the casino on the popular slots game Big Bass Splash when they stake a tenner on football. Want to join Midnite? Great, let's get you started! Simply download Midnite app or create an account online using the Promo Code: BETGETSPORTS Once that's done, deposit a minimum of £10 and stake a pre-match bet of £10 and a minimum of 4 legs, at minimum total odds of 3/1. Once that's settled - win or lose - you will receive £20 in free bets. You will also receive 50 free spins to spend on Big Bass Splash (valued at 10p per spin). *18+ New UK customers. Bet £10 on accas with 4+ legs, min odds 3/1 (4.0). Get 4x £5 Free Bets and 50 Free Spins, valid for 7 days on selected bets and games only. T&Cs apply. Remember to gamble responsibly A responsible gambler is someone who: For help with a gambling problem, call the National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133 or go to to be excluded from all UK-regulated gambling websites.
The Sun
32 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fluminense vs Chelsea: Get £50 in free bets with Betfred, plus our bet builder tips
CHELSEA clash with Brazilian outfit Fluminense for a place in the 2025 Club World Cup final. To mark the semi-final showdown, our team of betting experts has put together a 18/1 Bet Builder for the encounter, courtesy of Betfred. And there's more - new customers who sign up with Betfred and place a £10 bet on football will receive £50 in free sports bets. Fluminense vs Chelsea tips Our Bet Builder selections: Chelsea to win, Jhon Arias and Joao Pedro to score at 18/1. ADD TO YOUR BET SLIP HERE! Here's why we've made those selections.. Chelsea Win: Chelsea still haven't hit top gear, but they continue to motor through the competition and look likely to reach the final at the expense of their Brazilian opponents. The team's cohesion and style of play are coming together, with Cole Palmer nearing his best once again. Jhon Arias to score: Once dubbed the 'Colombian Pelé', Arias has been named Player of the Match in three of Fluminense's five games - including their win over Inter, where he both scored and assisted. He ranks ninth for total shots (13) and attempted defensive line-breaks (19), and is expected to make his presence felt once again. Joao Pedro to score: Enzo Maresca preferred Joao Pedro to Nicolas Jackson in the win over Palmeiras, and the Brazilian looked lively - coming close to scoring on either side of the eventual winner. That promising cameo should give him a confidence boost ahead of a reunion with his former club. Remember to gamble responsibly A responsible gambler is someone who: Establishes time and monetary limits before playing Only gambles with money they can afford to lose Never chase their losses Doesn't gamble if they're upset, angry or depressed Gamcare – GambleAware – Read our guide on responsible gambling practices. For help with a gambling problem, call the National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133 or go to to be excluded from all UK-regulated gambling websites. *New customers only. Register (excl 05/04/25), deposit with Debit Card, and place first bet £10+ at Evens (2.0)+ on Sports within 7 days to get 3 x £10 in Sports Free Bets & 2 x £10 in Acca Free Bets within 10 hours of settlement. 7-day expiry. Eligibility exclusions & T&Cs Apply. Eligibility & payment exclusions apply. Full T&Cs apply.
