Obviously it is far from sure whether Millman would have won if it had been a normal TB. He clearly got nervous towards the end, and that could also have been the case a few points earlier.What is the point of this?
It obviously worked out in Federer's favor this time - he would have lost 7-4 if it was a normal tiebreak.
The Slams all need to get together and decide on one 5th set format.
Counting the total points/games gives a more convincing argument to the winner.What if they are still tied?
Pretty much this as millman probs would’ve choked earlier if it was only to 7. I think wimby has a decent format of going a little after 5 sets but not forever cause that just ruins the winners chances afterwards due to exhaustion. Perhaps in the final they can play forever but before the final, there has to be a limit so players can save energy.I think Millman would have lost no matter what the format was, because winning the last few points is the hardest thing when you play the big3, and especially at your home slam with so much pressure and some extra pressure of expectation because Millman beat Federer already at a slam.
Tiebreakers bring out nerves, and we saw it in the 2nd Set tiebreaker too.
Millman faced a lot less pressure in their US Open meeting, because obviously there was no hint that he could beat Federer, plus no hometown pressure.
But I don't like 5th Set tiebreakers, and wish they didn't exist.
Marathon finishes are more interesting than the tiebreaker.