[ClaycourtaZzZz.]

Why is there a tiebreak?
In the other slam it goes till the end....!!

 

[Deivid23]

It´s all Murray´s fault

 

[ClaycourtaZzZz.]

very funny, idiot.

 

[megadeth]

it's a reflection of the american culture that everything should be done as quick as possible.

"i want it done, i want it now, i don't care how"

it also helps networks plan their scheduling better.

can you imagine how the american networks would adjust if they had a roddick-el ayanoui showdown like they had in the AO before?

 

[Paul Banks]

it's a reflection of the american culture that everything should be done as quick as possible.

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.

 

[megadeth]

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.

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.

 

[Paul Banks]

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.

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]

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?

 

[Sugar Kane]

I don't like this whole tiebreak thing...

 

[dukeblue5]

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?

Completely stereotyping an entire nation...

And your reasoning doesn't really make any sense. The US Open is different in the fact that it uses the 5th set tiebreak, it differentiates it from the other slams. You're saying that a best of 3 set tourney would separate it from the other 3, when it already has a rule which is different from the rest...

 

[Action Jackson]

It's called made for TV.

 

[its.like.that]

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.

you obviously know nothing about tennis if you think that an obviously close 5 set match deserves to be decided by drawing straws.

 

[Deivid23]

very funny, idiot.

:lol:

Little sense of humour we are having

 

[ClaycourtaZzZz.]

Always the same with those american Tournaments

 

[disturb3d]

Murray's a fool
Cuz he dropped out of high school

Stereotypes of a white male, misunderstood
And it's still all good

-B.I.G

 

[ClaycourtaZzZz.]

And you're a bastard.

 

[propi]

That's why US Open is the last in my preference list, IMO it's a shame to finish a great battle with tie break

 

[federer express]

It's called made for TV.

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.

 

[Action Jackson]

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.

1. It's a cheap way to decide a match especially in a 5th set.

2/3. Endurance isn't a factor in tennis. As a player I'd like to know that the extra fitness comes into it and have the mental capacity to go for as long as possible to win a match, this takes that away and becomes a game of chance and not skill.

It's all about the cash at the US Open anyone with a semi-thinking brain can see that.

 

[federer express]

1. It's a cheap way to decide a match especially in a 5th set.

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.