Wimbledon needs a fifth set tiebreak! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Wimbledon needs a fifth set tiebreak!

tangerine_dream
06-23-2010, 09:16 PM
Some think fifth set tiebreaks in slams are stupid. Now you've seen why a tiebreak could be a good thing. What do you think?

dijus
06-23-2010, 09:17 PM
No fucking way!!

iriraz
06-23-2010, 09:19 PM
I think it`s good as it is.Last year we had drama with 16-14 and it was acceptable.Something like this is a complete rarity and probably won`t be matched.I don`t think rules should be changed just on one match where two guys serve amazing and are struggling to put any good return in

Langers
06-23-2010, 09:19 PM
And stop absolute epics that come along once every...well, never before or after this.

This is one of the best sporting events I've ever seen.

So the answer is NO WAY!!

philosophicalarf
06-23-2010, 09:20 PM
Super-tiebreak to settle in the 5th, first to 14 points.

born_on_clay
06-23-2010, 09:20 PM
It is good as it is :)

Derevko
06-23-2010, 09:20 PM
I think they should introduce tiebreak at some points, like 15-15 or 20-20

Smasher
06-23-2010, 09:21 PM
No. USO should remove 5th set tiebreaks on the other hand

anon57
06-23-2010, 09:22 PM
Nope, the current format leads to some epic matches which is great. The Isner-Mahut match is insane but it's an anomaly it's not like this is going to happen again anytime soon.

Roddickominator
06-23-2010, 09:22 PM
A 5th set tiebreak would make the most sense at Wimbledon....seeing as it's harder to break serve on the grass, therefore you're more likely to have these matches where no one can break. But I doubt that is a real consideration unless this starts happening more often.

paseo
06-23-2010, 09:23 PM
No!!.

TheBoiledEgg
06-23-2010, 09:24 PM
just ban Isner

Dyraise
06-23-2010, 09:24 PM
I think they should introduce tiebreak at some points, like 15-15 or 20-20

An interesting option

acionescu
06-23-2010, 09:25 PM
Stop the smoking, Tangy :hug:

SerenaFederer
06-23-2010, 09:25 PM
umm how often have we gone 59-all in the 5th??

Action Jackson
06-23-2010, 09:26 PM
Never in doubt this coming from Tangerinus.

rafa_maniac
06-23-2010, 09:26 PM
Hell to the no. This is a never-before, never-again type match and is historic exactly for that reason. It's not going to become habit anytime soon. Imagine the last two Wimbledon finals with 5th set TBs? It's the US Open that needs to change.

Beforehand
06-23-2010, 09:27 PM
Yeah, I mean...it would be hard for me to justify that based on this one match, which seems to defy every previous standard set.

oranges
06-23-2010, 09:27 PM
For the fifth time today, that's a no. USO needs to get rid of the TB.

These two guys, however, do need a day rest after this.

Carlita
06-23-2010, 09:28 PM
For the fifth time today, that's a no. USO needs to get rid of the TB.

These two guys, however, do need a day rest after this.:yeah: exactly!

maybe they can set some sort of limit, but it's not like this will happen again anytime soon :lol:

so I say NO

ORGASMATRON
06-23-2010, 09:29 PM
ban the OP.

wally1
06-23-2010, 09:29 PM
No fucking way!!This post says it all.

Andi-M
06-23-2010, 09:49 PM
I think tiebreak in the 5th set of all slams in rounds 1-6 should be played, but grand slam finals shouldn't have one and they should continue until somebody breaks.

This Isner-Mahut match is so special, and I know these rules would prevent this from happening again but you have to look at the bigger picture the health of the players I mean this is R1 whoever the victor is will have no chance of getting far in the tournament it has completely wrecked their chances making 3r 4r etc is all but impossible for these guys now.

allpro
06-23-2010, 09:52 PM
i would have no problem with a tb at around 20-all.

Action Jackson
06-23-2010, 09:53 PM
I think tiebreak in the 5th set of all slams in rounds 1-6 should be played, but grand slam finals shouldn't have one and they should continue until somebody breaks.

This Isner-Mahut match is so special, and I know these rules would prevent this from happening again but you have to look at the bigger picture the health of the players I mean this is R1 whoever the victor is will have no chance of getting far in the tournament it has completely wrecked their chances making 3r 4r etc is all but impossible for these guys now.

Go follow another sport.

ChuckNorrisFan
06-23-2010, 09:53 PM
Knee jerk reaction

navy75
06-23-2010, 09:55 PM
I hate that the US Open has fifth set tiebreakers and feel empty when a great clash is ended by one, so I certainly would not want one at Wimbledon. Today was a classic that will be talked about for the rest of our lifetimes, and I wouldn't want it any other way. While Andi has a point about the winner not having much of a chance to progress much further, I think that the players will both look back and appreciate having been a part of this (even it it does potentially cost them a few extra pounds and ATP points in the interim).

BodyServe
06-23-2010, 09:56 PM
At worst this should be to the supervisor's discretion to invoke a 5th set tiebreak rule.

Because at the end of the day this is ruining players from further advance in the tournament.

scoobs
06-23-2010, 09:56 PM
Nope. Given that just once in history this situation has arisen, I don't think even before this a match has got to 30-30 final set, it seems unnecessary.

Sooner or later, somebody breaks and holds, or holds and breaks.

The fact that we got to 59-59 here is just the one freakishly bizarre, abnormal and historical exception to the rule.

I like the 5th set tiebreak at the US Open, I think it should stay there, it fits there and belongs there somehow, but it should only be there.

Sophocles
06-23-2010, 09:57 PM
This match has generated massive publicity for the sport. It's one of the leading new items on The World Tonight (Radio 4), for example, ahead of English progress in the World Cup. We don't want 5th-set tie-breaks at Wimbledon. Thank you.

DrJules
06-23-2010, 09:58 PM
Some think fifth set tiebreaks in slams are stupid. Now you've seen why a tiebreak could be a good thing. What do you think?

Making a change for a one off event is probably an over reaction.

Rosa Luxembourg
06-23-2010, 09:59 PM
that's what JMac was saying too.... My reaction? AQmercians should stop others to tell how to run their tournaments. You have your own ones to do it. So lay effing off.

Farrow
06-23-2010, 10:02 PM
Tiebreaks in fifth sets are a travesty. USOpen should never have adopted it. Thank god for the other slams.

Topspin Forehand
06-23-2010, 10:03 PM
No. It teaches these one-dimensional players to get a return game. I'm loving it. :devil:

paseo
06-23-2010, 10:03 PM
I think tiebreak in the 5th set of all slams in rounds 1-6 should be played, but grand slam finals shouldn't have one and they should continue until somebody breaks.

This Isner-Mahut match is so special, and I know these rules would prevent this from happening again but you have to look at the bigger picture the health of the players I mean this is R1 whoever the victor is will have no chance of getting far in the tournament it has completely wrecked their chances making 3r 4r etc is all but impossible for these guys now.

Don't like your job? Quit.

Nobody is forcing them to play professional tennis. Nobody is forcing them to play Wimbledon. Nobody is forcing them to keep playing, they can just give up anytime they want to. So what if the winner don't have a chance in the next round? It's his own fault for not being able to break his opponent serve. And on top of that, this is a unique case. Is not like this kind of thing happen all the time.

Purple Rainbow
06-23-2010, 10:09 PM
Blasphemist! :mad:

maxxo
06-23-2010, 10:28 PM
stfu & gtfo

ossie
06-23-2010, 10:32 PM
keep that wta shit out of the battlefield of the gods!

tennizen
06-23-2010, 10:37 PM
I think they should introduce tiebreak at some points, like 15-15 or 20-20

I think this option makes the most sense.

emotion
06-23-2010, 10:38 PM
No fucking way!!

this..

1i7y7y8hu

tangerine_dream
06-23-2010, 10:47 PM
Making a change for a one off event is probably an over reaction.
Is that what people said when Shuzo Matsuoka's cramping brought about new cramping time-out rules and extreme heat policies?

What if one of them had broken a bone due to extreme exhaustion after playing for ten hours straight? Would people feel differently about implementing a fifth set tiebreak?

Did anybody really enjoy watching that match go on and on and on and on and on? :shrug: Can you imagine how bad it would be if they allowed that in soccer? It's tied 0-0 so let's keep playing until somebody scores or they all drop dead.

I think this is legit question so :ras: to acionescu and AJ for dismissing it just because it's me and they must oppose me at all turns. :(

I think they should introduce tiebreak at some points, like 15-15 or 20-20
I think this is a reasonable idea. Djokovic said something similar: after a certain point they should have a sudden death tiebreak.

Andi-M
06-23-2010, 10:53 PM
Don't like your job? Quit.

Nobody is forcing them to play professional tennis. Nobody is forcing them to play Wimbledon. Nobody is forcing them to keep playing, they can just give up anytime they want to. So what if the winner don't have a chance in the next round? It's his own fault for not being able to break his opponent serve. And on top of that, this is a unique case. Is not like this kind of thing happen all the time.

Having something in place to protect the players. Whats wrong with that? I have a medical background and I know alot about the body, and what those 2guys did out there today was extreme and the effects on their bodies is unpredictable. Its highly likely they wont be able to walk tommorow let alone play, not to mention the effects from dehydration and lack of glucose and the effects they have. All sports have an end point for the reason to protect the players. Not everything should be about entertainment for the fans.

Allegretto
06-23-2010, 10:56 PM
What if one of them had broken a bone due to extreme exhaustion after playing for ten hours straight?
Are you under the impression that bones just spontaneously break due to exhaustion? It would have been difficult for Isner to break any bones just standing in the center of the court and teeing off on any balls that came his way. And Mahut wasn't tired at all, hence his diving around the place right near the end. So it's a non-issue, even in a theoretical sense.

Sophocles
06-23-2010, 11:03 PM
What if one of them had broken a bone due to extreme exhaustion after playing for ten hours straight? Would people feel differently about implementing a fifth set tiebreak?

Injuries in sport are an occupational hazard.

tangerine_dream
06-23-2010, 11:06 PM
Are you under the impression that bones just spontaneously break due to exhaustion? ... It's a non-issue, even in a theoretical sense.
Of course not. It's proven that when you are exhausted you're more likely to injure yourself. Isner could barely stand toward the end, with legs feeling like jelly he could have sprained an ankle or knee and broken something.

That said, their fitness in this match was amazing considering that neither appeared to be cramping nor did they max out their allotted medical time-outs.

Winston's Human
06-23-2010, 11:08 PM
Maybe they could institute a super tie break once the match reaches something unusual like thirty games all.

That would allow for some "play it out" drama without something as extreme as the Mahut=Isner match.

Roamed
06-23-2010, 11:08 PM
Maybe at like 100-100 so there is a foreseeable end point, however distant...

ApproachShot
06-23-2010, 11:08 PM
I hope Wimbledon oppose any pressure to change the status quo.

propi
06-23-2010, 11:13 PM
No. USO should remove 5th set tiebreaks on the other hand
THIS!

star
06-23-2010, 11:13 PM
I hope Wimbledon oppose any pressure to change the status quo.

I think if you see one match like this, you are just :worship: in amazement and admiration, and certainly, Wimbledon is not going to change just for this one match. But if we saw multiple matches like this, I the rule might be changed. I don't think any of us would be particularly pleased because the winner of such a marathon match is too depleted to go forward. Also, it screws up the scheduling something fierce and fiercer yet if there is more than one match like this per tournament.

peribsen
06-23-2010, 11:27 PM
I say keep things as they are... in the final, but only there. Some people don't seem to realize the nightmare such a match may turn into for others, like players waiting for it to end and start their own match, even being forced to play a day later and lose resting time between that round and the next. In short, it has all the inconveniences of a rain delay, only that rain falls at the same time on all courts (with some minutes of difference perhaps), while this can totally disrupt play only in a small part of the draw while other players enjoy the benefit of more predictable schedules.

Let the final muddle on for ages if you wish, but I think some time frame has to be imposed on other rounds.

None of the above implies that this match is just f**cking unbelievable and is sure to make tennis history. Whoever wins it, will he be able just to stand up and hold the racket in his next match?

The Magician
06-23-2010, 11:31 PM
Funny how the upset of Roddick in the 5th set tb and the crazy match today both involve Isner. Just goes to show you that the system itself doesn't matter, it's the quality of the players: namely, Isner :yeah:

jenanun
06-23-2010, 11:47 PM
umm how often have we gone 59-all in the 5th??

exactly!

thrust
06-23-2010, 11:52 PM
I think they should introduce tiebreak at some points, like 15-15 or 20-20

At least in the early rounds. The finals could go all the way.

The Magician
06-24-2010, 12:06 AM
I think they should abolish tiebreaks and go back to the way things used to be. They only created tie-breaks because S/V became so strong it was too hard to break consistently, time to go back to win by 2 :yeah:

acionescu
06-24-2010, 12:08 AM
LOL at the idea that my oppinion on a sport that I knew and loved for 30 years could be influenced by what someone( who I don't even know or have a strong oppinion on her, good or bad) posts on a tennis board :o
The idea is so stupid and you miss the point so much, Tangy, that I honestly believed you're trolling.
It seems you're not......errr.....OK :unsure:
I's a brililiant idea, and my and George's bad then that we are the only ones against it :lol:

green25814
06-24-2010, 12:10 AM
NO.

An anomaly should not dictate tournament rules. This is an amazing event not just for tennis, but for sport. Those guys are gladiators. This is what sport is truly about.

And you want to CHANGE THAT? Pack your bags and FUCK OFF.

Sunset of Age
06-24-2010, 12:13 AM
A clear and resounding NO!!!! to this question.
What we witnessed today (so far) is the stuff that writes history books, shows who the true gladiators of the game are, as apparently neither of the two players choked under pressure or from lacking fitness. Fantastic stuff.
What a show, behold!!! :rocker2: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Nice trolling attempt, Tangy. ;)

Har-Tru
06-24-2010, 12:14 AM
The FUCK it does!

selyoink
06-24-2010, 12:28 AM
5th set tiebreak is worst invention in tennis. Something like this will never happen again and to have been deprived of it would be a shame.

KarlyM
06-24-2010, 12:28 AM
NO!

If a grand slam match goes 5 sets, you should have to break your opponents serve to win. In a TB, you screw up once and it's likely over. With no TB, you have to screw up a few times to lose.

I think the US Open should get rid of the final set TB.

Sunset of Age
06-24-2010, 12:31 AM
NO!

If a grand slam match goes 5 sets, you should have to break your opponents serve to win. In a TB, you screw up once and it's likely over. With no TB, you have to screw up a few times to lose.

I think the US Open should get rid of the final set TB.

Well said! :yeah:
TBs are a matter of 'luck' much more than 'playing on till the bitter end', so as to say. I value true fighting spirit, mental fortitude to be able to keep on going, not choking, etc. a lot more than the 'luck' of winning a deciding TB in the concluding 5th set!

Oizo
06-24-2010, 12:33 AM
No fifth set! That's why Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon are the best slams :cool:

mcnasty
06-24-2010, 12:38 AM
isner after play was suspended: "he [mahut] served fantastic, i served fantastic, and that's about all there is to it"

he's right literally. aesthetically it wasn't great tennis, in fact, it was utterly boring and exasperating at times, but as the score just kept mounting it was dramatic,compelling, historic, epic and whatever hyperbole you can think of.

yes to tiebreaks in the fifth to gaurantee what isner also said after play was suspended: "there won't anything like this ever again"

@Sweet Cleopatra
06-24-2010, 12:39 AM
No! It is more fair with out tie break.

green25814
06-24-2010, 12:44 AM
isner after play was suspended: "he [mahut] served fantastic, i served fantastic, and that's about all there is to it"

he's right literally. aesthetically it wasn't great tennis, in fact, it was utterly boring and exasperating at times, but as the score just kept mounting it was dramatic,compelling, historic, epic and whatever hyperbole you can think of.

yes to tiebreaks in the fifth to gaurantee what isner also said after play was suspended: "there won't anything like this ever again"

Anyone who argues for TBs is a pussy.

Jimnik
06-24-2010, 12:45 AM
NO!

This.

Bilbo
06-24-2010, 12:48 AM
NO!

No TB in the 5th set is what makes the slams so special and having epic results once in a while is good for the sport imo

It's the USO that needs to get rid off the TB

Anyone who wants a TB in a 5th set is no real tennis fan. It's matches like Mahut-Isner which gives the sport attention in hard times like these when the World Cup is on. No one cares for normal results.

mcnasty
06-24-2010, 12:49 AM
Anyone who argues for TBs is a pussy.

meow

Mjau!
06-24-2010, 01:02 AM
Maybe we could have special rules for the serve only mugs? :scratch: I'm already fearing a potential Isner - Karlovic matchup next year. :eek: :scared:

mcnasty
06-24-2010, 01:13 AM
Maybe we could have special rules for the serve only mugs? :scratch: I'm already fearing a potential Isner - Karlovic matchup next year. :eek: :scared:

as they say, the mob rules. but it's good to see that someone else has a dissenting view.

HKz
06-24-2010, 01:18 AM
umm how often have we gone 59-all in the 5th??

This for sure

Just because of one match, don't change it. Now if this was more common, of course this should be taken into consideration. But no, hell no.

ORGASMATRON
06-24-2010, 02:16 AM
No! It is more fair with out tie break.

:awww: :D

Archer16
06-24-2010, 02:22 AM
A resounding no, and I'm also for canceling 5th set TB in the USO as well. However some of the reactions towards the OP where completely out of place. You can disagree with someone without cursing him :rolleyes:
Is that what people said when Shuzo Matsuoka's cramping brought about new cramping time-out rules and extreme heat policies?

What if one of them had broken a bone due to extreme exhaustion after playing for ten hours straight? Would people feel differently about implementing a fifth set tiebreak?

Did anybody really enjoy watching that match go on and on and on and on and on? :shrug: Can you imagine how bad it would be if they allowed that in soccer? It's tied 0-0 so let's keep playing until somebody scores or they all drop dead.

I think this is legit question so :ras: to acionescu and AJ for dismissing it just because it's me and they must oppose me at all turns. :(

I think this is a reasonable idea. Djokovic said something similar: after a certain point they should have a sudden death tiebreak.
First of all they didn't play for 10 hours straight, "just" 7, which isn't a lot more than previous max time played on a single day.
Second, health is a very important issue, but there are ways to protect players without changing the ground rules, e.g. limit playing time for a day to 6 hours, or allow an extended medical break after a certain number of games played (e.g. after the 100th game of the match and then once every 20 games).

No singles match ever has gone beyond 28-26 (happened once in '89 Wimbledon qualies and didn't garner much attention at the time), and in main draws the record was a measly 21-19. If this ever happens again, then the rule of a super TB after, say, 30 games all - first to 15 points or something - should be considered.

kooties
06-24-2010, 06:40 AM
no, hell no.

The 5th set play makes you earn the victory. Nothing quite like it.

gin lemon
06-24-2010, 06:47 AM
no I like it the way it is

Stefanos13
06-24-2010, 08:01 AM
No. USO should remove 5th set tiebreaks on the other hand

Agree

Frooty_Bazooty
06-24-2010, 08:03 AM
this match proves why a tiebreaker would be a TERRIBLE thing. we'd be missing out on one of the greatest matches of all time!

avinash
06-24-2010, 08:07 AM
No Way Leave It The Way It Is !!!!

ossie
06-24-2010, 08:24 AM
i sense a wta spy among us...

Acer
06-24-2010, 08:57 AM
What a silly thread

Castafiore
06-24-2010, 09:53 AM
Some think fifth set tiebreaks in slams are stupid. Now you've seen why a tiebreak could be a good thing. What do you think?
If we had matches like these on a regular basis, I'd agree with you.

However, most of these matches don't go on for ages, they end quickly enough with a 16-14 type score. This one exception is not enough reason to change the rule.

Did anybody really enjoy watching that match go on and on and on and on and on?
Just personally speaking, I don't voluntarily sit down and watch a big server like Isner unless there's a player I like on the other side. (Fair enough if others enjoy that obviously but it's not my cup of tea.)
However, towards the end, it was fascinating to see them both trying to hold on physically and mentally. It's not going in the history books as the highest quality match ever but it's still interesting to watch. :shrug:

Can you imagine how bad it would be if they allowed that in soccer? It's tied 0-0 so let's keep playing until somebody scores or they all drop dead.
They've experimented in football on how to end matches. Most agree that a sudden death of a match - a TB like ending - is a buzzkill and not a great way to end a match.

Acer
06-24-2010, 10:33 AM
If we had matches like these on a regular basis, I'd agree with you.

However, most of these matches don't go on for ages, they end quickly enough with a 16-14 type score. This one exception is not enough reason to change the rule.


If anything it's a reason to KEEP the rule. This match has got people who don't follow tennis talking about it, if anything that's a good thing.

latso
06-24-2010, 11:13 AM
Hell NO!

what else? making it best of 3? throwing a coin?

no F way

aussie_fan
06-24-2010, 11:17 AM
Some think fifth set tiebreaks in slams are stupid. Now you've seen why a tiebreak could be a good thing. What do you think?

Why would u want them? just so your fave can lose in them to Isner again?

This story has generated so much interest and a reason why tibereakers shouldn't be in the 5th set at slams.

Lopez
06-24-2010, 11:56 AM
isner after play was suspended: "he [mahut] served fantastic, i served fantastic, and that's about all there is to it"

he's right literally. aesthetically it wasn't great tennis, in fact, it was utterly boring and exasperating at times, but as the score just kept mounting it was dramatic,compelling, historic, epic and whatever hyperbole you can think of.

yes to tiebreaks in the fifth to gaurantee what isner also said after play was suspended: "there won't anything like this ever again"

Why is it that people complain so much about these "all serve" matches/players? Serving is the most difficult thing to do in tennis, you should respect that.

Usually the most talented athletes have the best serves in tennis, especially if they're not overly tall (Federer, Sampras for example).

cardio
06-24-2010, 12:00 PM
No way! I think it is great match and it happens less than one time in hundred years. Would they cancel overtime in basketball if only ONE match would go for 20 OT and further in NBA and introduce free throws sudden death if normal time is tie? It is ridiculous even to suggest it. If anything USO should get rid of 5th set breaker and go for advantage set in 5th also. Davis Cup and Slams are real old time sporting events for real men. In sports, an athlete ( or team) who is better/ more fit/ smarter should win. Not the luckiest one. It is not casino.

Dersu Uzala
06-24-2010, 12:25 PM
This match - great. If you like watching serve-dominated 6'7" guys bangin' down aces for 7 hours. Personally this brand of tennis bores me to tears.

This farce should have been settled by a fifth-set tie-break.

Raquel
06-24-2010, 02:06 PM
I said last night at about 25-25 maybe there should be a limit where a tiebreak eventually gets played but only if both players agree. Neither of these guys were clearly going to give up though or they would have done it way before 59-59 so if they were happy to play on then it's fine. Judging by the reaction of the other players on Twitter and in interviews etc they were all very proud of these guys so I'm glad no tiebreak was played. It was a one off and I think most people were glad to be able to watch it play out, judging by the poll result

tennizen
06-24-2010, 04:03 PM
Why are people harping about the rarity of this kind of match? I think all that is needed is a change in the rulebook with something to the effect that if a match goes beyond 20-20 score then they will settle it with a tie-break. It's probably never going to be used but they should have such a rule. It's ridiculous to keep playing at 60-60.

ossie
06-24-2010, 04:37 PM
Why are people harping about the rarity of this kind of match? I think all that is needed is a change in the rulebook with something to the effect that if a match goes beyond 20-20 score then they will settle it with a tie-break. It's probably never going to be used but they should have such a rule. It's ridiculous to keep playing at 60-60.whats ridiculous is the fact that they cant break each other nothing wrong with the rules

tennizen
06-24-2010, 04:40 PM
whats ridiculous is the fact that they cant break each other nothing wrong with the rules

So the rulebook should provide an alternative for this kind of a situation:shrug:

amirbachar
06-24-2010, 05:44 PM
No-ad games starting from 6-6 might be a better idea.

oranges
06-24-2010, 05:52 PM
No-ad games starting from 6-6 might be a better idea.

Huh? Talk about having an advantage serving first :lol:

Azurebi
06-24-2010, 05:54 PM
No way. No way.
Next!

amirbachar
06-24-2010, 06:02 PM
Huh? Talk about having an advantage serving first :lol:

Why would it give a bigger advantage of serving first?

oranges
06-24-2010, 06:13 PM
Why would it give a bigger advantage of serving first?

If you're asking, than I'm not sure what you meant with the proposal at all. No-ad as in the first to win a point after 40 in every game, rather than the first to go game up? Either way, I see no reason to change rules. Even deciders that go to 20 don't happen more than once in decade and this will most likely never happen again. No one was injured or will suffer some long-term consequences. They've just messed a schedule a bit and in return we had a once in a life time experience.

Audacity
06-24-2010, 06:15 PM
No it doesn't.

Edith09
06-24-2010, 06:19 PM
No tiebreak, match like Isner-Mahut won´t repeat for another 50 years or so.

yonexforever
06-24-2010, 06:23 PM
Its not about changing the rules just because of one match.
I started a thread yesteday about the All England CLub revisiting the tie-break rule and it was deleted eventhough i mentioned no specific match.
Ther reward for winning this type of marathon should NOT be a loss in the net round as a result of fatigue.
It speaks to the integrity of the draw/tournament.
Sure its fascinating stuff or even sleep inducing stuff for some, but at the end of the say, the winning player is basically done next round.

BodyServe
06-24-2010, 06:25 PM
No-ad games starting from 6-6 might be a better idea.

Come on, they are not junior, ridiculous rule.

ryder66
06-24-2010, 06:25 PM
Jeez, it's not like this happens all the time. Most fifth setters don't go to marathons, not even close. Why all the talk about needing a tie break? Just enjoy the moment and move on.

Mjau!
06-24-2010, 07:47 PM
Matches this long are not healthy. Did you ever stop to think about the player's health before praising this dangerously long serve-fest? :(

oranges
06-24-2010, 07:58 PM
Matches this long are not healthy. Did you ever stop to think about the player's health before praising this dangerously long serve-fest? :(

Yes, I'm certain they'll be perfectly fine. I'm also certain if there was any danger to their health at some point that resident physicians would express their concerns and something would have been done about it. That wasn't the case. They'll just be mighty tired, is all.

MacTheKnife
06-24-2010, 08:21 PM
I agree oranges. I did however at a couple of points late yesterday think that Isner should be looked at. When he almost collapsed after a couple of serves it did occur to me..

oranges
06-24-2010, 08:30 PM
Well, I have no doubt both were super exhausted, but there's some way from that to actual health problems. I've watched Ancic puke on court from accumulated exhaustion and have a trainer because of blurry vision, who basically came to assess whether he should go on or not, there wasn't anyhting he could do really. If it wasn't for the dark and the match continued yesterday, I trust John would call for a trainer if he felt there was need and would be advised not to continue if there was a chance he's risking health problems. Similarly, even if he did not ask for one, but the one in attendance assesses he's not really fit to continue, I trust they'd bring it up with someone in charge.

Action Jackson
06-24-2010, 08:31 PM
So the rulebook should provide an alternative for this kind of a situation:shrug:

Stop it.

tennizen
06-24-2010, 08:39 PM
Stop it.

Why?

I don't care about "OMG, it's the way they have been doing it for years" crap. I am not saying matches like that will happen all the time. Probably never again but that doesn't make the whole thing less ridiculous. Playing till 70 games apiece is stupid. So because it happened once, make provisions to prevent it from happening again:shrug:.

Action Jackson
06-24-2010, 08:47 PM
Why?

I don't care about "OMG, it's the way they have been doing it for years" crap. I am not saying matches like that will happen all the time. Probably never again but that doesn't make the whole thing less ridiculous. Playing till 70 games apiece is stupid. So because it happened once, make provisions to prevent it from happening again:shrug:.

It's a classic knee jerk reaction that is why and ludicrous which will do nothing to benefit the game. Slams have to have advantage sets in the final one, as for the US Open they are special.

The rule is not the problem, if the players can serve that well then good luck to them and if they can't break, that is not the fault of the rule it's the inability of those players to break.

They are professional athletes, they should be able to handle the physical and mental aspects of the game, stay out there for as long as it takes to get the job done.

5th set tiebreakers are a stain on tennis in any form. Not like it needs another gimmick.

Where to next, players over 1.95m can only have one serve in the 5th set and they have to serve second against a smaller player.

oranges
06-24-2010, 08:52 PM
Why?

I don't care about "OMG, it's the way they have been doing it for years" crap. I am not saying matches like that will happen all the time. Probably never again but that doesn't make the whole thing less ridiculous. Playing till 70 games apiece is stupid. So because it happened once, make provisions to prevent it from happening again:shrug:.

Why? It's a part of the sport, all of it, from playing exhausted to consequence for one's chances further in the draw. Personally, I'd rather they make sure players get a reasonable amount of rest after such a match, than decide where's the line when we say "OK, we've had enough of this, let's end it quickly".

Action Jackson
06-24-2010, 08:55 PM
Hey, there maybe a car accident lets ban cars.

Dimitra
06-24-2010, 08:58 PM
No it's good as it is.
IF anything I believe USO should change their 5th set TB rule.:shrug: :p

Marek.
06-24-2010, 08:59 PM
No. Leave it as is.

tennizen
06-24-2010, 09:18 PM
Why? It's a part of the sport, all of it, from playing exhausted to consequence for one's chances further in the draw. Personally, I'd rather they make sure players get a reasonable amount of rest after such a match, than decide where's the line when we say "OK, we've had enough of this, let's end it quickly".

It's a part of the sport because someone made one set of rules initially. You could always tweak the rules. The point is not whether the players are playing exhausted but what constitutes a reasonable length of time for which a match goes on.

tennizen
06-24-2010, 09:23 PM
Hey, there maybe a car accident lets ban cars.
That would be the case if I were saying, " Tennis matches can go long so don't play them":hug:

oranges
06-24-2010, 09:37 PM
It's a part of the sport because someone made one set of rules initially. You could always tweak the rules. The point is not whether the players are playing exhausted but what constitutes a reasonable length of time for which a match goes on.

No, it's part of the sport because that's tennis. There's no time limit, you don't win until it's GSM. I don't see the need to tweak the rule because once in a blue moon there's a freakishly long match. In fact, I think this one was a great and unforgettable experience and I'd hate to have missed it.

tennizen
06-24-2010, 09:44 PM
No, it's part of the sport because that's tennis. There's no time limit, you don't win until it's GSM. I don't see the need to tweak the rule because once in a blue moon there's a freakishly long match. In fact, I think this one was a great and unforgettable experience and I'd hate to have missed it.

That's fine. I think differently:shrug:

Action Jackson
06-24-2010, 09:45 PM
Tweaking the rules for what actual purpose? There isn't one at all in this case besides stupid knee jerk reactions.

Rule changes in any sport, well the sensible ones tend to be researched and thought through properly to benefit the sport as a whole, this doesn't. Examples are adding the extra player in volleyball and making every point a scoring one benefited the game, as did the 4 TBs and then advantage 5th set in tennis, banning the backpass to the goalkeeper in football all positive changes.

Only benefits TV networks.

Bargearse
06-24-2010, 10:51 PM
I feel like all slams should be the same. If Wimbledon is going to have a 5th set tiebreaker, so should the US Open. Keep it consistent I say. Oh, and put hawkeye on all the courts so all players can benefit!

Topspin Forehand
06-24-2010, 10:53 PM
I'm for putting a super tiebreak at 12-12 in the 5th set. Just enough time to see if the players are able to decide it.

triplefault
06-25-2010, 03:13 AM
It's reassuring to see the vast majority of the forum agree on this. The fundamental principle tennis is that in order to win a set, you have to break your opponent's serve while holding your own. Tiebreakers are okay for the first four sets as it takes more than one to win a match, but in a close five-setter, the match should be determined by pure tennis, not by flipping a coin.

Regarding the winner of the match being at a disadvantage for the next round --- that's exactly the way it should be! The player who can overcome his opponent faster deserves tha advantage of more rest for the next round. The player who takes forever to break his opponent's serve should not be rewarded with an extra day off, which would unfairly disrupt the schedule for everyone else.

As for the marathon match being exhausting, these are professionals and should be expected to deal with it. Running marathons are exhausting, and triathlons. The Tour de France cyclists must cycle continuously several hours a day many days in a row; should that be changed so they race at most four hours every other day? At least in tennis there are breaks between every point and the changeovers, and the occasional bathroom break.

The 5th set tiebreak in the USO is an abomination and makes it a cut below the other slams. I want slam winners to be decided by real tennis, not coin flips.

emotion
06-25-2010, 03:23 AM
Nice poll....

ORGASMATRON
06-25-2010, 03:25 AM
i agree with the OP, a tie break should be introduced at 100-100 :lol:

156mphserve
06-25-2010, 04:37 AM
this is actually what gets me less hyped up for the US Open then the other slams. The potential for marathon matches. Really though, who wants to lose a 5 hour, 5 set match with hundreds of points because of 1 mistake in the tiebreak. At least make them break serve to win

Ozone
06-25-2010, 05:16 AM
Some think fifth set tiebreaks in slams are stupid. Now you've seen why a tiebreak could be a good thing. What do you think?
I dont know about you but I actually enjoyed watching an epic like this. I mean everyone has been talking about it in the sports world. It's something special and truly great for the sport of tennis.

straitup
06-25-2010, 05:26 AM
I dont know about you but I actually enjoyed watching an epic like this. I mean everyone has been talking about it in the sports world. It's something special and truly great for the sport of tennis.

Agreed...and besides, if the players said that they shouldn't have a fifth set tiebreak, there really should be no debate. And some of you who think this match went too long, well:

a) The players should realize that if they have such great serves and no returns, they should alter their gameplan or work on their returns so that they don't get in a 70-68 match again
b) It's not like there were no break points or match points in the 5th set...there weren't many, but it could've been ended with any of Isner's match points. Fortunately, Mahut was extremely clutch and played brilliantly down match points.

The US Open, I don't like the 5th set tiebreaker but I think it goes best there because of the high energy/crazy crowd and just the aura. Wimbledon, not so much.

TankingTheSet
06-25-2010, 01:30 PM
Other side of the coin was shown today.

MacTheKnife
06-25-2010, 01:42 PM
After Isner's performance today, Wimby will have a 5th set TB of some sort by 2011..

nalbyfan
06-25-2010, 01:44 PM
Poor Isnern he was defeated because he was exhausted, it's unfair for him

Beforehand
06-25-2010, 01:47 PM
It's not unfair for him, though. If he'd played better/differently and returned better, for example, he could have won much quicker.

superslam77
06-25-2010, 02:10 PM
About 10-10 there should be a tiebreak.

68-70 is unnecessary to determine a winner to get killed in the next round.

Sports need to evolve.

dusan1610
06-25-2010, 02:11 PM
No.

nobama
06-25-2010, 03:56 PM
yes, but not after 6 games. Take it to 12 or 18 and then if necessary go to a TB.

LleytonMonfils
06-25-2010, 04:15 PM
How can anyone say it is unfair to Isner. He is the one playing out there. He had plenty of chances to end the match and he didn't. That is his fault, no one elses. I hate the excuse that it is unfair to Isner because he was out of gas today.

cobalt60
06-26-2010, 02:09 AM
Yes but not the typical tiebreak. The first day/night they played when they opted to stop the match for darkness they should play a tiebreak. Get on with the schedule and allow the match to end. By that first evening enough was enough. Fortunately I doubt I will ever see a match like this again in my lifetime. Dramatic sure and I enjoyed it and the players realized they made history but the disappointment on Mahut's face was so palatable. And sad after 3 days.

Persimmon
06-26-2010, 02:11 AM
Some think fifth set tiebreaks in slams are stupid. Now you've seen why a tiebreak could be a good thing. What do you think?

Why not?

RagingLamb
06-26-2010, 02:57 AM
I don't know about a tie break, but there should be a way to prevent matches such as the recent one, which ran for 11 hours. I understand that long matches can be exciting, but this one was really unnecessary, and in my opinion, way past the point of being interesting.

Is it worth it to delay the tournament for an extremely long match (Imagine if the Isner-Mahut deadlock lasted even longer), or worse risk having a player injured because they're stuck in a situation like that where they can't close out a match?

I don't think so.

straitup
06-26-2010, 03:16 AM
I don't know about a tie break, but there should be a way to prevent matches such as the recent one, which ran for 11 hours. I understand that long matches can be exciting, but this one was really unnecessary, and in my opinion, way past the point of being interesting.

Is it worth it to delay the tournament for an extremely long match (Imagine if the Isner-Mahut deadlock lasted even longer), or worse risk having a player injured because they're stuck in a situation like that where they can't close out a match?

I don't think so.

If it starts happening on a regular basis (which it won't), then maybe they should change it. But this sort of thing will never happen again, I'll be very happy if it happens again in my lifetime.

It's just an extremely exciting and rare event that no one's going to care that the tournament could be delayed (all they delayed was Mathieu-Youzhny, and maybe some matches scheduled after)

RagingLamb
06-26-2010, 03:21 AM
If it starts happening on a regular basis (which it won't), then maybe they should change it. But this sort of thing will never happen again, I'll be very happy if it happens again in my lifetime.

It happened once, so it could happen again, but you're right, the odds are really really small.

It's just an extremely exciting and rare event that no one's going to care that the tournament could be delayed (all they delayed was Mathieu-Youzhny, and maybe some matches scheduled after)

I guess this is where my opinion differs from most. I thought it was really boring and unnecessary.

straitup
06-26-2010, 03:46 AM
I guess this is where my opinion differs from most. I thought it was really boring and unnecessary.

Fair enough...it was a match between 2 great servers, but I thought it was much more exciting than, say, a Roddick-Karlovic match. It might've helped that it got great press in the US, moreso than our world cup win, which made me quite proud. I could see it seeming drawn out for people, but I love the long matches, the history, the crazy crap that happened

kaetchen
06-26-2010, 06:24 AM
Definitely no.
And US Open should abandon fifth set tiebreak as well. Tiebreaks could be decided by a point by a very narrow margin, I think this is way more unfair than Isner's disadvantage yesterday.
Moreover, this has happened only once and nothing before has come close to such a score. It is starts happening more often they could think of implementing a tiebreak at let's say 30-30. But for now, no. And Isner-Mahut match was a truly great and memorable moment.

raahaat7
06-26-2010, 06:47 AM
The odds for this to happen is very small. So keep it as it is.

August
07-31-2012, 06:52 PM
5th set really needs a tiebreak, not at 6-6 but something like 20-20. And that should be to 10, or maybe even 20, points. And I mean all the slams and OG and DC.

viruzzz
07-31-2012, 07:04 PM
Hell no!

Action Jackson
07-31-2012, 07:13 PM
For once a MTF poll makes sense.

IOFH
07-31-2012, 07:15 PM
Hellz no! I hoped Jo and Milos would go 200 games over 3 days, creating history and bringing the focus of the olympics to tennis. Now with this only being a 7-setter this tournament stays between almost non-existant and very little in the prestige-level.

August
08-03-2012, 05:05 PM
I still think 5th set needs a tiebreak at some point. Fed-DelPo was epic but going over 20-20 would've been too much.

RagingLamb
08-03-2012, 05:43 PM
Maybe they can have a 5th set tiebreak except in the final match.

rocketassist
08-03-2012, 05:44 PM
Behave.

Julián Santiago
08-03-2012, 05:54 PM
No

Lazyking
08-03-2012, 06:00 PM
I think they do need tiebreaks in matches not the final just because at a certian point, it becomes less about skill and more about attrition. Plus, other matches have to be played.

IOFH
08-03-2012, 06:02 PM
I still think 5th set needs a tiebreak at some point. Fed-DelPo was epic but going over 20-20 would've been too much.

Nope, it was the players (mostly Fed's) fault they returned too poorly, or choked when had a chance, or got broken when serving for it :facepalm: They have only themselves to blame if this affects them Sunday.