[Cat123]

Personally, I'm leaning far far towards the hating. And not only because my boys just lost. Ok, I might be a little bitter...

The outcome of a match seems to be more down to luck that skill. There were 3 tie breaks in this match, a few points here and there (mostly there ). Would it kill them to play another actual set?

Whoever came up with the Match Tie Break thing, I want to hunt him down.

 

[JMG]

I have the impression that you think Jamie Murray is a world class player and should beat anyone.

 

[Lee]

I am more against the no ad rule. That's even more down to luck than skill.

 

[NinaNina19]

I am more against the no ad rule. That's even more down to luck than skill.

Me too.

 

[decrepitude]

I don't like them. They may as well just toss a coin and be done with it.

 

[Burrow]

Yes, I hate both the rules, match tie break and the stupid no advantage rule, which is quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

[Fitz]

I don't mind the no ad rule, but if they are using it to make the matches speed up, then why isn't it being used in singles? I don't see why doubles has to be the only one compromised. I think they should either have the no ad in both or do away with it! As for the CTB, you'll never see me agree with having those!

 

[Bingerz]

Im against all the new rules. Don't cheapen the game, doubles is an integral part of tennis

 

[StevoTG]

Im against all the new rules. Don't cheapen the game, doubles is an integral part of tennis

Yip, why fix it if it aint broken?

 

[*Viva Chile*]

I don't care about doubles except on DC and when the Bryans lose

 

[Kristen]

I made a sign of my feelings about these issues at the last decent tennis match I saw in Melbourne [involving Damm/Vizner]. I think both the no-ad and the TB rules are absurd. My main issue is with the tiebreak though I think.

 

[Cat123]

I have the impression that you think Jamie Murray is a world class player and should beat anyone.

What do you mean by that? And I don't think he *should* beat anyone, I think he *could*. The fact that he and Max beat the Bryans the other week and that last nights match against the wimbledon champion was so close would suggest that. If they'd lost last night playing the old rules then I'd be dissapointed but I could take it, the fact that these new rules have made close matches like this such a gamble makes me

 

[Kolya]

Depends if you like to watch doubles or not.

 

[RFS]

What do you mean by that? And I don't think he *should* beat anyone, I think he *could*. The fact that he and Max beat the Bryans the other week and that last nights match against the wimbledon champion would suggest that. If they'd lost last night playing the old rules then I'd be dissapointed but I could take it, the fact that these new rules have made close matches like this such a gamble makes me

I think the issue here is not if Jamie/Max or indeed anyone's favourites are world beaters!
Cat's point is that the MTB is beginning to make a complete mockery of the event. I personally take Fitz's view... I don't really mind the No-ad rule so much, but the MTB or "Ridiculous" tie-break as we are beginning to refer to it, is a more dubious addition to the proceedings.

But... the rules are the same for everyone, and even the best get beat by it... (Bryans - Delray!)...

 

[General Suburbia]

On paper, it doesn't seem to make that big a difference. Seeded players are still winning the same percentage of matches they always have, as higher ranked players do too. A lot of the doubles players expressed concern when the rules changed, but they seem not to mind that much anymore. It hasn't affected their tennis as much as people initially thought it would.

 

[RFS]

Apart from Wimbledon, where it seems to revert to the "proper" rules of tennis.... do the other Slams invoke no-ad and MTB? i can't remember!

I have no issue with No-ad in the standard ATP tourneys, but I think for a Slam, it should be play to advantage and 2 clear games in the last (3 sets for Ladies, 5 sets for men)... just seems to make it more of Slam-worthy challenge...