Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 40 of 58 Posts

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
federer express said:
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.
Actually in a Slam it is cheap to win a 5th set breaker, it shouldn't be just done for TV purposes which this clearly is, have to keep as many unique things about the Slams as possible, the last set should be advantage and yes I understand why they changed them from 5 advantage sets to the current format and it makes sense.

7-5 is not losing a set in a breaker that's the difference, at least takes 4 points to break, whereas in tiebreaker it just could be a lucky net cord, shouldn't just come down to chance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,772 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
Actually in a Slam it is cheap to win a 5th set breaker, it shouldn't be just done for TV purposes which this clearly is, have to keep as many unique things about the Slams as possible, the last set should be advantage and yes I understand why they changed them from 5 advantage sets to the current format and it makes sense.

7-5 is not losing a set in a breaker that's the difference, at least takes 4 points to break, whereas in tiebreaker it just could be a lucky net cord, shouldn't just come down to chance.
sorry i didn't make myself clear there. i meant is winning that match, where the winner had the benefit of two tie-breaks to his name less cheap than someone just winning one tie-break in the fifth set? i'm not sure that a tie-break can be an acceptable way of winning or losing every set, apart from a fifth one. but dont get me wrong, i love seeing people battle it out for longer and the drama that ensues. i am just not a strong anti-fifth set breaker person i guess...
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
federer express said:
sorry i didn't make myself clear there. i meant is winning that match, where the winner had the benefit of two tie-breaks to his name less cheap than someone just winning one tie-break in the fifth set? i'm not sure that a tie-break can be an acceptable way of winning or losing every set, apart from a fifth one. but dont get me wrong, i love seeing people battle it out for longer and the drama that ensues. i am just not a strong anti-fifth set breaker person i guess...
I am very much anti-5th set breaker, and in a perfect world I'd like to be advantage for 5 sets, but that doesn't happen anymore for clear reasons, but the last set shouldn't be decided by a breaker in a Slam that's cheap. Fortunately the other 3 Slams aren't prepared to do it like this and good for them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,626 Posts
I don't buy completely the common reasoning that it is done only/mainly for TV purposes. Still a match can go from 70 minutes up to 4 hours or even longer. And if they didn't play the tiebreak, maybe then it's only 4 hours 30 minutes. It's not like that a big big TV match on AA or Armstrong gets broadcasted every day and then the whole American nation has to wait in front of their TVs until they play the releasing and redemptive 5th set tiebreak to put an end to such an awful match and that the TV stations save about 20 minutes in average with such rare matches in order to contiue with their usual program and not bothering people anymore with a sports like tennis. The span a match can go even with a 5th tiebreak is still a too big one to seriously make the match duration for programming purposes more calculable and most 5th sets advantage sets are over anway before both players reach double digits in games.

(BTW, I also don't like the final set tiebreak in Slams, I don't even like it in all other tournaments)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
I hate breakers:fiery:
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Neely, if it's not for TV purposes which like the stupid 3 day 1st round is for and been admitted that it's done for TV purposes and as has been said before the US Open are more worried about TV than the players and fans, if not then Super Saturday wouldn't exist, then why is it done like this?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
i dont care really, im happy one way or the other. Though i am a little more partial to no tiebreakers. However i can understand the want of more intensity during the last few points of the match.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,626 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
Neely, if it's not for TV purposes which like the stupid 3 day 1st round is for and been admitted that it's done for TV purposes and as has been said before the US Open are more worried about TV than the players and fans, if not then Super Saturday wouldn't exist, then why is it done like this?
Sure, it could be for TV purposes, but I don't see a strong reasoning behind that!
Because as I said 1.) the span a men's match can go is still very big even with a final set tiebreak and 2.) only a few matches that go beyond 6-6 in the final set go significantly longer than a normal advantage set because in the very most cases the match is over anyway before both players reach double digits in games and if I already have 4 hour 10 minutes match who cares if it is 4 hours 20 minutes with a tiebreak or 4 hours 35 minutes without a tiebreak. (you know, the relative amount of saved times due to the final set tiebreak is comparatively very unsignificant)

And that's why I'm wondering "Does this really make the programming/scheduling of a TV station more calculable"?

For me as the head of programming the advantage of a rule like that would tend to zero.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,783 Posts
disturb3d said:
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
arent the lyricks 'black male, misunderstood'?
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Neely said:
Sure, it could be for TV purposes, but I don't see a strong reasoning behind that!

And that's why I'm wondering "Does this really make the programming/scheduling of a TV station more calculable"?

For me as the head of programming the advantage of a rule like that would tend to zero.
You have explained your take on it, but at the same time not given another alternative if it's not for TV purposes then why would this happen? As stated before with 2 clear examples of things that are made for TV, so with this it stands to reason and as for time saving, well look at the market.

It makes sense it's for TV and the fact with the MLS they have straight penalties after a drawn football game, not the same sport, but the principle is the same, it's maybe more like know the market, but since when has logic ever been followed, you say the majority of the time it never gets that far and it doesn't, but still a 5th set shouldn't end in a 7-6 scoreline.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
For me it's very boring the way it's right now.:eek:
I would love itif a night match there would end for example 6-4 7-6 6-7 5-7 10-8 that's what it needs in Grand Slam Tennis!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
its.like.that said:
you obviously know nothing about tennis if you think that an obviously close 5 set match deserves to be decided by drawing straws.

:rolleyes:
Hon, a tie-break is a legitimate way to end a match, I understand why some people don't like it, but it's just a question of preference. The US Open does it their way, and it's fine that way. I doubt the rule was made for television; for television standard, a 5 set match that goes to 6-6 is already too long, so at that point, it does not make a difference if it's a tie-break or not.

One of the biggest myth in tennis is that tie-break are a "luck" thing more than anything else. This isn't true. A tie-break shows most of the time who's the better player of the 2 and who's the stronger player mentally. Why? Because in a tie-break there are so many important points, and it's in those moments that we see who deserves more to win a match.

I've watched I don't know how many tie-break, and very few of them were determined by luck. And luck is part of the game, so whoever wins by luck deserves to win as well.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Paul Banks said:
I doubt the rule was made for television; for television standard, a 5 set match that goes to 6-6 is already too long, so at that point, it does not make a difference if it's a tie-break or not.
You're sure about that are you? Not my fault that some people have a short attention span and whine that 6 all is too long, that is just garbage. Seen plenty of matches where the right person has won and when it was advantage sets and not just in Davis Cup either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,626 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
You have explained your take on it, but at the same time not given another alternative if it's not for TV purposes then why would this happen?
If I knew another reason for that I would have told you.
So far, I have given my view on this "rule" and for me it's a rule that doesn't really give a true edge for making the match duration more calculable.

It makes sense it's for TV and the fact with the MLS they have straight penalties after a drawn football game, not the same sport
That's not correct, they play overtime in MLS.
Also in MLB, NHL, NFL and NBA a game can THEORETICALLY go to infinite overtime periods/innings.
So the argument "it's part of the American sports landscape and they always want it now" doesn't stand for me anymore and got rejected by this.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Neely said:
If I knew another reason for that I would have told you.
So far, I have given my view on this "rule" and for me it's a rule that doesn't really give a true edge for making the match duration more calculable.
It suits their purposes to do so and if someone can offer another reason that is outside TV influences then I'd be happy to hear/read it.


That's not correct, they play overtime in MLS.
Also in MLB, NHL and NBA a game can THEORETICALLY go to infinite overtime periods.
There you go, they can do that, but still insist on a 5th set breaker.

It's lucky that so many classic matches weren't ruined by a 5th set breaker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
It suits their purposes to do so and if someone can offer another reason that is outside TV influences then I'd be happy to hear/read it.
It's a fine, legitimate and intense way to end a match. In non-Slam tournament, that's how it ends, so why do you ask for a reason, when it's a standard for the majority of tennis matches?
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Paul Banks said:
It's a fine, legitimate and intense way to end a match. In non-Slam tournament, that's how it ends, so why do you ask for a reason, when it's a standard for the majority of tennis matches?
The Slams are different and if Slams weren't different, then they wouldn't be Slams would they? How about looking at the overall circumstances, it's not good enough to end a DC tie like that in a live match and not for the other 3 Slams either.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,626 Posts
George, I don't have a better reason and I don't want to say you are wrong if you are saying they are doing it for TV. I'm saying this rule is rubbish and that I can't see getting enough advantage out of it (because not enough matches go until scores like Roddick vs Younes). It's just ridiculous to play this final set tiebreak to save maybe 20 or 30 minutes of a tennis match if they (TV) think it's okay that a baseball game can go to 18 innings and take about double the time than regularly. Obviously tennis is not deemed as important enough to "sit it out" until the end.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,258 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
:fiery: USTA
 
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
Top