Wimbledon tennis fails to go through the roof

....principally because the roof was shut and was therefore doing its job well. After decades of rain affected, incomplete matches, the All-England club last night successfully closed its brand new £50 million roof to enable the match between Murray and Wawrinka to finish (which it duly did, at 22.38 London-time). With Wimbledon having suddenly dived headlong into the 21st Century, a whole series of important issues has emerged: Ian Ritchie, Chief Executive of Wimbledon, has spoken glowingly about the new roof; the BBC's audience peaked at 12 million, instantaneously establishing Wimbledon as a newly reinvigorated television spectacle; Andy Murray complained that the combination of grass, a roof, a late night and the heat made for difficult playing conditions; and those attending the match expressed concerns that afterwards they were unable to find their way around the Wimbledon site - a site which is not usually used at such a late hour and thus doesn't have e.g. the lighting that is needed to ensure people move around safely. Thus, what should the organisers of Wimbledon learn from this new experience? Can the tournament proceed in both the short-term and the long-term without any further work on the site being undertaken? Are there particular issues or concerns that the event manager's need to address if the new roof is to be the asset that many are already purporting it to be? And what will happen when it rains? A warm summer night could well be a considerably different experience to a wet Wednesday afternoon, characterised by torrential rain - has Wimbledon thought about or accounted for the differences? In this context, how have any associated risks been identified and addressed, and what contingencies are there in place if the roof, or any other part of the tournament experience, causes difficulty in any way?