Joined
·
19,368 Posts
Why is there a tiebreak?
In the other slam it goes till the end....!!
In the other slam it goes till the end....!!
If that reasonning would be true, don't you think they would play best of 3 instead of best of 5?megadeth said:it's a reflection of the american culture that everything should be done as quick as possible.
dude, if it were played in 3 sets, you'll have arguments if the USO should still be consdired a slam or not.Paul Banks said:If that reasonning would be true, don't you think they would play best of 3 instead of best of 5?
I love the fifth set tie-break. I prefer a 5 to 10 minutes of complete intensity than a match that never ends. After 4 sets and 12 games, enough is enough. I don't see the point to see a match going on forever (Santoro vs Clement) and then the winner totally exhausted who's likely to lose in the next round.
When you can have something exciting as a fifth set tie-break, why not? Though that I would prefer to see a 10 points tie-break instead of 7.
A 5-set match is not an absolute requisite for Slams (where did you get that information?), the French Open thought about doing best of 3 set matches before the 1/4F.megadeth said:dude, if it were played in 3 sets, you'll have arguments if the USO should still be consdired a slam or not.
a 5-set match is a requisite for slams, but a non-tiebreak set in the 5th isn't.
Completely stereotyping an entire nation...megadeth said:dude, you know what i mean. it's like an unwritten rule. if you had only 1 slam out of 4 that played 3 sets, it will be scrutinized by the media and fans.
you'll have threads here saying - "should the USO still be considered a slam or not?"
unless all 4 slams agree that it should be played in 3, criticisms should that happen, will emerge.
on a side note, the 5th set tie break also reflects NY's hustle and bustle kind of lifestyle. if it can be done in breaker, why go for a +2 result and prolong an expected outcome?
you obviously know nothing about tennis if you think that an obviously close 5 set match deserves to be decided by drawing straws.Paul Banks said:If that reasonning would be true, don't you think they would play best of 3 instead of best of 5?
I love the fifth set tie-break. I prefer a 5 to 10 minutes of complete intensity than a match that never ends. After 4 sets and 12 games, enough is enough. I don't see the point to see a match going on forever (Santoro vs Clement) and then the winner totally exhausted who's likely to lose in the next round.
When you can have something exciting as a fifth set tie-break, why not? Though that I would prefer to see a 10 points tie-break instead of 7.
:lol:Federer_Express said:very funny, idiot.
this is true but i'm in favour of it because:GeorgeWHitler said:It's called made for TV.
1. It's a cheap way to decide a match especially in a 5th set.federer express said:this is true but i'm in favour of it because:
1. it is great viewing, which as spectators we cant complain about
2. if a match reaches 2 sets all and 6 games all, both players have had ample opportunity and time to win the match in a more conventional manner
3. when a match reaches this stage, i would rather it was decided by skill or quality tennis, which i believe we are more likely to see in the tie-break than at 19-18 when both players are only just able to stand.
whatever the pros and cons, you can be sure that everything the US Open does is with television figures and money in mind, rather than the players or fans.
in that case what about someone winning 7-6 7-6 4-6 3-6 7-5. is that less cheap because the final set wasn't a tie-break? if winning a match with a fifth set tie-break is cheap then isn't it cheap to win any set in that manner? i dont have strong views on this and would not like to see it spread to the other slams, but i can accept it for one of the four majors.GeorgeWHitler said:1. It's a cheap way to decide a match especially in a 5th set.