Ah, Wimbledon. Strawberries, cream, a glass of Robinsons. The chance to savour British summertime in all its clean, white glory.

And that’s why subtitlers literally beg their managers to be allocated Wimbledon! We love it. The sheer individuality of both the event and the BBC’s coverage of it makes it a joy to subtitle.

Another nice thing about subtitling tennis is that there are only ever two or four players on court. Of course we have to know every competitor’s name, but only having two attractive people clad in white in front of us at any one time is much less overwhelming than American football, for example. Knowing the names of 90 helmet-and-shoulder-padded beasts in each game is a much scarier prospect!

There is also a limited set of vocabulary in a tennis match, so long as Cliff Richard doesn’t start singing. While literally anything could be said during The One Show, tennis commentators do tend to talk just about the tennis. Being able to predict what people might say is very helpful for subtitlers. Once you’ve got your “deuce” and your “juice” sorted, you should be OK. (Although that’s where all that Robinsons can actually be problematic.)

Another gift to subtitlers is the speed of the commentary, which is noticeably slower than many sports. 15 minutes of motorsport or horse racing could easily be 2500 words of commentary, whereas tennis commentators tend to allow the sport to speak for itself. And that’s where the true challenge lies. What should tennis subtitles include?

That may sound like a stupid question. Shouldn’t the subtitles just transcribe whatever the speakers say? Yes, probably they should for the News At One, but not necessarily for tennis. Unfortunately, wherever we place subtitles, they do obscure part of the screen and therefore part of the tennis, so we try to balance keeping the action subtitle-free with giving our viewers access to everything that’s said.

The score appears on the graphics, for a start, so we don’t subtitle that. And when Andy has smashed his serve into the net and the umpire says “second serve”, we don’t cover up his second attempt by subtitling that. But what about what we might call commentator-ese? If Sue declares a blinding ace “a great shot”, is it better to subtitle that or better to leave the screen clear and assume the viewers know it was a great shot?

Of course, as a department we have guidelines advising subtitlers on what approach to take, depending on the style of commentary and the nature of the sport. But there are no right answers when different priorities conflict and at Ericsson we are always open to feedback from viewers to help us make the best decisions while on air.

Rachel Thorn, Subtitler