Mens Tennis Forums banner

41 - 58 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
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.
You were asking for a reason, and I provided a reason. There is nothing unconventional or special to end a match with a tie-break, that's all I'm saying.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Neely said:
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 double the time than regularly. Obviously tennis is not important enough to "sit it out" until the end.
There are other ones besides Roddick vs Younes and if people have such a short attention span and can't handle it once it gets to 6 all in the 5th, then why bother.

You shouldn't be trying to use logic to explain ad revenues and the like, the last sentence you said is the most logical reason.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Paul Banks said:
You were asking for a reason, and I provided a reason. There is nothing unconventional or special to end a match with a tie-break, that's all I'm saying.
It's not legit for a Slam, but do you think there is a difference between Slams and normal tournaments? If not, then why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
It's not legit for a Slam
The only reason it's not legit is because you decided that it's not legit because you don't like it.

Then why don't we just abolish tie-break in every set if Slams are so special, and if tie-break are so bad and due to luck?
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Paul Banks said:
The only reason it's not legit is because you decided that it's not legit because you don't like it.

Then why don't we just abolish tie-break in every set if Slams are so special, and if tie-break are so bad and due to luck?
You're cracking jokes aren't you? If these events aren't unique, why have them?

Comprehension problem have we? Just for you I need to state it again. It's understandable as to why they changed it from 5 advantage sets to what is happening now and that's fine, as the other Slams/Davis Cup they decided to keep the 5th set advantage set which is the best solution under the circumstances.

So you got bored with Federer vs Safin, Younes vs Roddick then did you because they went longer than 6 all? You should stick to the WTA the attention span problem, shouldn't be an issue then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
You're cracking jokes aren't you? If these events aren't unique, why have them?

Comprehension problem have we? Just for you I need to state it again. It's understandable as to why they changed it from 5 advantage sets to what is happening now and that's fine, as the other Slams/Davis Cup they decided to keep the 5th set advantage set which is the best solution under the circumstances.

So you got bored with Federer vs Safin, Younes vs Roddick then did you because they went longer than 6 all? You should stick to the WTA the attention span problem, shouldn't be an issue then.
"Fifth set tie-break are bad, because they are bad. Wait, did I mention why fifth set tie-break are bad, because... they are bad! They're not legit! Why they're not legit? Because they're not legit!"

You have nothing interesting to say, I'm done with this thread.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,295 Posts
is there a 5th set tie-break that has stayed in the mind of many people? the roddick- el aynaoui match i think will stay in the minds for a long time and it would have never happened with a tie-break...enough reason why I think in the GS matches should end with advantage sets, those are the things that separates the Slams from the other tourneys and I would suppose they should apply in all Slams.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
Paul Banks said:
"Fifth set tie-break are bad, because they are bad. Wait, did I mention why fifth set tie-break are bad, because... they are bad! They're not legit! Why they're not legit? Because they're not legit!"

You have nothing interesting to say, I'm done with this thread.
Have you asked me why I think they are bad? I stated my reasons earlier in the thread, but you chose not to read them.

Rosset vs Arrese 8-6
Muster vs Stich 12-10 in Davis Cup
Federer vs Safin 7-9 at the AO
Safin vs Mantilla 11-9 at RG
Younes and Roddick at the AO
Corretja vs Gumy 9-7 at RG
Cañas vs Henman 8-6 at AO

These are reasons enough as to why there shouldn't be 5th set breakers these matches were very tough and close and didn't need a breaker to decide them and as the drama got higher, then it wasn't just about fitness at this stage. It's a clear decision and personally at Slams it should be decided by someone breaking serve.

Would you like more reasons, joker?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
Have you asked me why I think they are bad? I stated my reasons earlier in the thread, but you chose not to read them.

Rosset vs Arrese 8-6
Muster vs Stich 12-10 in Davis Cup
Federer vs Safin 7-9 at the AO
Safin vs Mantilla 11-9 at RG
Younes and Roddick at the AO
Corretja vs Gumy 9-7 at RG
Cañas vs Henman 8-6 at AO

These are reasons enough as to why there shouldn't be 5th set breakers these matches were very tough and close and didn't need a breaker to decide them and as the drama got higher, then it wasn't just about fitness at this stage. It's a clear decision and personally at Slams it should be decided by someone breaking serve.

Would you like more reasons, joker?
Actually no, it's not a valid reason to reject a fifth set tie-break. All you're saying is: "we should never eat chinese food because japanese food is better". Just because there are some exciting matches that ended 10-8 in the fifth set doesn't mean a fifth set tie-break is not legit or can't be exciting. It's just different.

Look, I've already said that you can very well prefer whatever you want. To each their own, you don't like the fifth-set tie-break. It's just that you have no basis to say a fifth set tie-break is not "legit".
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,507 Posts
I thought you were leaving this thread Mr Banks? No, Roland Garros were not thinking of shortening it to 3 sets and where is your information for this claim? You work for the USTA do you?

Just to make sure you get this clear. How many more times does someone need it explained? Yes, I understand why they don't have advantage of 5 sets, bigger draws are an obvious one.

Slams and DC are different from normal tour events. If there wasn't something making them unique, then there would be hardly any prestige in winning these events and then they would be just normal tournaments, which they are not. Yes, even

Matches should not be won on tiebreakers in the 5th set, better fitness should come into it and more importantly the ability to break serve in the final set, when it counts as the tension and fatigue builds up and and not knowing when it's going to end, whereas when it comes to a breaker, this is not the case.

There have been more than enough matches with the advantage 5th set that have produced high quality finishes and drama which ask more of the players than a breaker does. I have already given more than enough examples of these matches.
 

·
_._._._._._
Joined
·
72,524 Posts
I'm with GWH. A 5th set tie break is exciting but doesn't have the same drama as a 5th set that goes well beyond 12 games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,793 Posts
It's telling to me that the players aren't complaining about the 5th set TB at the US Open. I wouldn't be surprised if they would welcome doing the same at the Aussie Open, where the heat can also be very oppressive, and winners would look forward to conserving some energy for the next round.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,772 Posts
1991 US OPEN connors vs krickstein 3-6 7-6 1-6 6-3 7-6

you can argue either way on this and i see why people dont like the breaker in the fifth. on certain days i might be in complete agreement with those people too, as my opinions are subject to change. however, i dont thinkyou can dismiss a tie-break in the final set as not legitimate. i dont like the argument that it reduces the match to potentially one piece of luck, because that is the case even if you play an advantage set...one net cord could mean a break of serve. also, lets not assume that tie-breaks are pure luck.

in general, the better players have the better records in tie-breaks. this is a situation where every point matters and there is huge pressure on every single shot. this is a genuine test of players' nerve, technique and skill. that is why i say it is a legitimate way to end a match. of course it sucks for the loser, but so does losing 12-10 in the decider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
dukeblue5 said:
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... :confused:
dude, read my previous posts. like i said, a 5-setter is almost like a requisite, an unwritten rule for all slams.

but a 5th set tiebreak isn't looked upon strictly since the players (if they get there) have already endured 5 sets of tennis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
dukeblue5 said:
Completely stereotyping an entire nation...

i wasn't stereotyping your nation, it is indeed a fact. i work in an american company and that's how it is when you work with americans. i'm not complaining about it, hell, i'm even used to it and became like that already.

it's like as if it's a bad thing. different cultures for different nations.

and by the way, NY itself i branded as a hustle a bustle kind of city. hence - "the city that never sleeps"

just stating the obvious
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
I thought you were leaving this thread Mr Banks? No, Roland Garros were not thinking of shortening it to 3 sets and where is your information for this claim? You work for the USTA do you?
I read it in French tennis magazine. They were thinking of maybe doing it for the first rounds. But why you bring up that now, I have absolutely no idea. No I'm not working for the USTA.

Slams and DC are different from normal tour events.
Really? You really make me laugh with your little teaching about Slams being different than normal tournaments, no, really? :retard: Does that mean they should use pink tennis balls? Afterall, Slams are sooooooooo special, everything has to be different, right?

Better fitness should come into
If both players were able to reach 6-6 in the fifth, we can assume they're both fit. At that point, we don't really need fitness as a factor.

and more importantly the ability to break serve in the final set
A player who wins 7-6 7-6 7-6 does not need to break even once his opponent. Why should it be any different for 5 sets? Breaking serve doesn't have to be a criteria in tennis to be a winner.

There have been more than enough matches with the advantage 5th set that have produced high quality finishes and drama which ask more of the players than a breaker does. I have already given more than enough examples of these matches
You're comparing 3 Slams and Davis Cup versus one Slam. Obviously, there has been more high quality finishes and drama. Duh. If there would be 3 Slams and Davis Cup with a fifth set tie-break, we would have many memorable matches as well.

It's a legetimate way to end a match, whether you like it or not. I won't lie twice, now I'm really done. :)
 
41 - 58 of 58 Posts
Top