Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We have had another Wimbledon marathon match and people are voicing their concern, again, about the need for a 5th set tiebreak. I don't particularly like this idea. I love these marathon matches and the history they create. However, I do understand why some people want to limit them for the sake of the players. So how about a compromise?

First week of GS: no limit on 5th set length
Second week through SF: Super tiebreaker played at 12-12 (first to 10 points)
Final: No limit, go all out

These marathon matches aren't very common, but if we do have to reach a compromise, maybe something like that will work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
I don't get what the problem is with those long matches, because this doubles match isn't going to be on the court, just bump it to court 1 or somewhere, it's so stupid. Also, why are they complaining if Wimbledon stop playing at 11pm while Hewitt at the AO got to play until 4 in the morning.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,773 Posts
I don't get what the problem is with those long matches, because this doubles match isn't going to be on the court, just bump it to court 1 or somewhere, it's so stupid. Also, why are they complaining if Wimbledon stop playing at 11pm while Hewitt at the AO got to play until 4 in the morning.
It's not about the delay it causes. It's that it's brutal on the players body. The fifth set today was almost three hours long. Had there been a fifth set tiebreak, that would've been significantly less time on court. Anderson stated in his interview that it became no fun and their bodies began to break down after six and a half hours.

Everyone thinks about these long matches as entertainment and forget about the people providing it, but as time goes on and it becomes 20-20, the quality of tennis gets worse and kinda boring to watch. IMO, a tiebreaker would have been much more intense and less physically demanding than the win by 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
It is fine as it is. Meaning of advantage set is very simple : in order to win you have to break and hold. You have to have at least one break more in final set than your opponent .You have to be clearly better than your opponent . Two points in breaker is too small winning margin. Considering that mens tennis is very much serve-dominated game, is often means just one point you win in return. ONE freaking return point !

This one point is almost lottery. One bad bounce ( they had it plenty yesterday ) could decide it . How would player feel if he lost 5th set tiebrekaer because of bad bounce ? Or because of bad linecall ? Or because umpire mistake ? Or dead netcord ball which you never have a chance to play? What if ridicilous unfairly won point in Edmund-Djokovic match would have been in sharp end of 5th set tiebreaker ? How would Djokovic feel then ? How would tennis fans feel ?

No. Advantage set is just fine.If you have bad luck on one point ,you have time to correct it .You never have bad bounces or umpire mistakes 4 times in a row,which is minimum amount of points lost to lose the game.. Sometimes it produces more than reasonably long matches, but it is rarely. Yes, it is bad for player to play 6.5 hours in a row. But if he does that , it is his own fault, it is because of his poor return game . Could you imagine Djokovic playing 50 game set against Isner ? Or Nadal playing 50 game set vs Anderson ? It would never happen, because they actually have a return game to break much earlier than that .They dont have to wait until servebot drops dead on court from exhaustion.

If it is not broken, dont fix it .

Advantage set in fifth is just fine .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts
I don't understand what is the problem with long matches. It gives a difference between the other matches on the tour and slam matches. An advantage in the final set is very good to play for.

All bots will do is hold their serve and take it to tiebreaks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I'm kind of torn on this issue. I understand both the importance of having to break your opponent's serve and the need to wrap it up once the tennis devolves into drudgery.

I think there could probably be a limit set at 12-12 or 18-18. Leaning more towards 18-18. I wouldn't want the limit to be reached except in very rare occasions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
How about a "no"? Can't you see ever since the tiebreak were introduced in 1970's, servebot came into the scene when they could not break anyone's serve but simply wait for the tiebreak to win a set, saving them a lot of energy for the next match should they win the match with their unstoppable serves? If their energy was sapped out, their serve would be half velocity which enable for the return to exploit them when the servebot could not return at all properly. They do not advance further in the next round if they do not improve their tennis.

Imagine this: Anderson and Isner playing in a first round with a long match and after 6 hours and 36 minutes, we'd be seeing a 3rd set with Anderson leading 2-0 and playing a long 3rd set if there are no tie-break rules in effect No way they'd be alive to play in 2nd round. His next opponent would be fresh and exploit their fatigue with a quick match. This would hurt their ranking and servebot would disappear instant after a year of reintroduce this rules. Had Isner playing with any inferior and could not break their serve, he would be too tired to face Anderson and end this match quickly. I understand why Isner and Anderson are lobbying for a tiebreak because it increase their chance of winning any major title because they could not even return anything in the first place. This non-tiebreak in all sets actually WEED them out of the ranking. Their style of play is not sustainable over a long year, imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
All sets as advantage sets is not practical. Tennis already had it, wasnt very good, especially in TV-era.

But you are right, coolboarder, tiebreaker favors heavily servebots, especially on fast surfaces. Like I said, all they had to do is hold their serve and win one bloody return point in breaker.

Players with huge serve has the right to play the game and to have some success, but I wouldnt want them to win slams. Advantage set is big insurance against fluke win . Slam winner has to have balanced game -good serve,good groundstrokes and volleys, good return.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
You guys are acting like they forced Anderson to play a 6.5 hour match. He could have won it quickly, but he failed to and now pays the price. The responsibility was his, and they shouldn't be altering rules for situations that may not occur.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
I am a complete traditionalist, yet even I have thought for some time that this needs to change. People say a tiebreak is too much of a lottery and you don't get a clear/true winner - so let's compare to the biggest sport in the world, football, and their biggest competition, the World Cup (which happens 16 times less often than Grand Slams)... In that event they are happy to decide the winner of matches on penalties, which is surely a hell of a lot more random than a 12 point tie-break? So if something like that is good enough for the biggest sport in the world, I don't see why we can't have a 5th set tiebreak. And I don't see how a 12 point tiebreak any more random than a break of serve occuring somewhere in 50 service games, which can take just 4 points (and in reality it will probably come down to just one or two mistakes, the same as a tiebreak).

I am a HUGE tennis fan, yet I though yesterday was ridiculous - I was bored, I had other family members (who like tennis) that were bored too. If people are questioning "is this too long / is this right" then that already means it isn't right. People's concentration spans are very different these days.

Advantage sets come from a time when the game was less physical. This is 2018 and if a match reaches 6 all in the 5th, haven't they played enough?

Then there's the fact that after a match like this players are usually dead in the next round - is that good for the sport?

Then there's the scheduling issues...

Why not let them have an exciting conclusion to the match with a 5th set tiebreak where they can both battle it out whilst they're fit and healthy. You then get a healthy player going through to play another healthy match.

Rant over, feel better now :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
We have had another Wimbledon marathon match and people are voicing their concern, again, about the need for a 5th set tiebreak. I don't particularly like this idea. I love these marathon matches and the history they create. However, I do understand why some people want to limit them for the sake of the players. So how about a compromise?

First week of GS: no limit on 5th set length
Second week through SF: Super tiebreaker played at 12-12 (first to 10 points)
Final: No limit, go all out

These marathon matches aren't very common, but if we do have to reach a compromise, maybe something like that will work.
A compromise between a sensible option and an untenable one is still a bad solution.

In the end, it's all about winning three sets. People who say the fifth set shouldn't be decided in a tie-breaker should be consistent in their argument and argue against tie-breaks in all sets. For in the end, it doesn't matter if a player wins sets 1, 2 and 3 or sets 1, 3 and 5. The fifth set is no more "decisive" than the first or the third.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
I am a complete traditionalist, yet even I have thought for some time that this needs to change. People say a tiebreak is too much of a lottery and you don't get a clear/true winner - so let's compare to the biggest sport in the world, football, and their biggest competition, the World Cup (which happens 16 times less often than Grand Slams)... In that event they are happy to decide the winner of matches on penalties, which is surely a hell of a lot more random than a 12 point tie-break? So if something like that is good enough for the biggest sport in the world, I don't see why we can't have a 5th set tiebreak. And I don't see how a 12 point tiebreak any more random than a break of serve occuring somewhere in 50 service games, which can take just 4 points (and in reality it will probably come down to just one or two mistakes, the same as a tiebreak).

I am a HUGE tennis fan, yet I though yesterday was ridiculous - I was bored, I had other family members (who like tennis) that were bored too. If people are questioning "is this too long / is this right" then that already means it isn't right. People's concentration spans are very different these days.

Advantage sets come from a time when the game was less physical. This is 2018 and if a match reaches 6 all in the 5th, haven't they played enough?

Then there's the fact that after a match like this players are usually dead in the next round - is that good for the sport?

Then there's the scheduling issues...

Why not let them have an exciting conclusion to the match with a 5th set tiebreak where they can both battle it out whilst they're fit and healthy. You then get a healthy player going through to play another healthy match.

Rant over, feel better now :)
I'd think penalties are more even between the two sides, whereas a TB will likely somewhat favor a heavy server... Based on stats, out of active players you got the Big 4, a few heavy servers and Nishikori in top 10 of the '% of tiebreaks won' statistic. #1 is Fed (65.14%), #2 Murray (62.95%), #3 Djokovic (62.82%), #4 Isner (61.86%), #5 Raonic (61.46%), #6 Nadal (61.11%), #7 Kyrgios (58.96%), #8 Monfils (58.84%), #9 Delpo (57.89%), #10 Nishikori (57.78%). A few outliers though. Karlovic (#1 in Ace %) is at 50.13%. An Querrey (#8 in Ace %) is at 48.64%.

That said, if you've pushed through to a TB, up until that point there have already been plenty of chances in that set for both players to break, so I don't know whether a TB is that unjust in the end (just like in football you've played 90+30 minutes before the PK's). I see the point that keeping the current system or getting rid of TB's altogether would weed out players relying heavily on big serves. Even still, especially in the slowed down conditions of today, heavy serving has already been made less effective. There hasn't been a single player who has simply served his way to a title. I don't know... such marathon 5th sets in the semifinal might make the final borderline a W/O. But I also see the point that this should be an incentive for the players to work on their ROS skills. I think I'm still in favor of an extended TB in the 5th which would give enough chances for the server and the returner without destroying the body of the one going to the final.

As to the difference of a TB and a regular game (the second bolded part), in a TB all you need is to win one single return point (a mini break), whereas to break a regular game you need to at minimum win 4 return points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
Penalty shootout is not perfect solution in football and it is similar lottery as tiebreak. BTW they still have extra time 30 minutes after regulation time before they reach their "football tiebrekaer". Draw is very common result in football and is allowed even in World Cup group stage. It is allowed in every leauge. Only in cup matches they sometimes have to use it .But even there it usually counting goals made in home and in road to decide winner .Tennis is no draw game. In every set, in every match there has to be winner .Breaker in first sets is OK. Breaker in fifth is not OK

USO introduced it, but Americans are alone in this. Thank god other slams do not allow it .

BTW, if you are that desperate to get rid of advantage set in 5th, there are other solutions than tiebreaker.

How about if it is 6-6 in fifth,then match is won by player who won more games in all five sets .
If this is equal : who won more points in 5th set ?

And if even this is equal, who won more points in the whole match.


Fot instance : Anderson-Isner was 6-6 in fifth . By that time Anderson won 31 games in the match, Isner 30 games. Anderson won after 6-6 and no 50 game set , no tiebreaker lottery .That would force players to put maximum effort in every game ,not to just wait until breaker or tank sets if they are broken.

Anderson-Federer after 6-6 in 5th : Federer won 28 games, Anderson 27

I wouldnt mind Federer playing against Isner in SF and possibly against Djoker / Nadal in final.:wink2:

And for those who didnt get meaning of my message, it was NOT a serious proposition. It was a joke.>:)

But even this weird joke would be better to decide the winner than tiebreaker in 5th .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
I'd think penalties are more even between the two sides, whereas a TB will likely somewhat favor a heavy server... Based on stats, out of active players you got the Big 4, a few heavy servers and Nishikori in top 10 of the '% of tiebreaks won' statistic. #1 is Fed (65.14%), #2 Murray (62.95%), #3 Djokovic (62.82%), #4 Isner (61.86%), #5 Raonic (61.46%), #6 Nadal (61.11%), #7 Kyrgios (58.96%), #8 Monfils (58.84%), #9 Delpo (57.89%), #10 Nishikori (57.78%). A few outliers though. Karlovic (#1 in Ace %) is at 50.13%. An Querrey (#8 in Ace %) is at 48.64%.

That said, if you've pushed through to a TB, up until that point there have already been plenty of chances in that set for both players to break, so I don't know whether a TB is that unjust in the end (just like in football you've played 90+30 minutes before the PK's). I see the point that keeping the current system or getting rid of TB's altogether would weed out players relying heavily on big serves. Even still, especially in the slowed down conditions of today, heavy serving has already been made less effective. There hasn't been a single player who has simply served his way to a title. I don't know... such marathon 5th sets in the semifinal might make the final borderline a W/O. But I also see the point that this should be an incentive for the players to work on their ROS skills. I think I'm still in favor of an extended TB in the 5th which would give enough chances for the server and the returner without destroying the body of the one going to the final.

As to the difference of a TB and a regular game (the second bolded part), in a TB all you need is to win one single return point (a mini break), whereas to break a regular game you need to at minimum win 4 return points.
Quite often the bigger servers do not have the best TB records, Karlovic is a prime example of that. Tiebreaks are actually more about creating important points, and at such times the better players tend to step up. Runners run a different race when the finish line is changed.

And yeah I know you need to win four points to break, but often opponents are winning one or two points in service games anyway, so what it actually comes down to is the other one or two points. You often hear players say how matches like that are decided by one or two points, they don't say "it was decided by those FOUR points my opponents won in my service game"!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
I am a complete traditionalist, yet even I have thought for some time that this needs to change. People say a tiebreak is too much of a lottery and you don't get a clear/true winner - so let's compare to the biggest sport in the world, football, and their biggest competition, the World Cup (which happens 16 times less often than Grand Slams)... In that event they are happy to decide the winner of matches on penalties, which is surely a hell of a lot more random than a 12 point tie-break? So if something like that is good enough for the biggest sport in the world, I don't see why we can't have a 5th set tiebreak. And I don't see how a 12 point tiebreak any more random than a break of serve occuring somewhere in 50 service games, which can take just 4 points (and in reality it will probably come down to just one or two mistakes, the same as a tiebreak).

I am a HUGE tennis fan, yet I though yesterday was ridiculous - I was bored, I had other family members (who like tennis) that were bored too. If people are questioning "is this too long / is this right" then that already means it isn't right. People's concentration spans are very different these days.

Advantage sets come from a time when the game was less physical. This is 2018 and if a match reaches 6 all in the 5th, haven't they played enough?

Then there's the fact that after a match like this players are usually dead in the next round - is that good for the sport?

Then there's the scheduling issues...

Why not let them have an exciting conclusion to the match with a 5th set tiebreak where they can both battle it out whilst they're fit and healthy. You then get a healthy player going through to play another healthy match.

Rant over, feel better now :)
In old days, football draws in any Cup play tend to hold a replay match to be played in different day until they introduced the penalties to determine who advances is not a good way because a weaker team could win a match. Also I do not get it when they could have used all the substitute into the match after 120 minutes and the starter must sit down after that and whoever scores the first goal by the team depth wins the match in an actual match than the penalties.

A long match in tennis is very rare and happens only 3 times in tennis history when it went past 20 games in the final set. I doubt that it will happen ever again but as long as Isner is still playing, I wouldn't bet against him but doubt that it would happen again as he is 33 and is not getting younger. They should keep this format as it's very rare for the match to go extremely long. I prefer the advantage sets than tiebreak.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
I get that there are pros and cons to the tiebreak, but I can count far many more pros than cons.

I don't believe this format keeps fans, or draws new ones in - I remember after the 16-14 Wimbledon final going into work the next day and countless people said how they turned it off mid-way through the final set. Unless you're a die-hard tennis fan with absolutely nothing to do for 6+ hours I don't see how this works.

How many people actually sat down and watched that whole match? And I don't mean "had it on in the background whilst doing other things". I doubt I will even watch the full Wimbledon final without doing other things inbetween. I dislike football, yet I sat down to watch all the England games in their entirety, because 90 mins (or 120) is a decent amount of time for a sporting contest.

Opinions on this will always differ, but I've gone from someone wanting MORE advantage sets and MORE BO5, to wanting less lately.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top