2018 Wimbledon SF: Kevin Anderson vs. John Isner

[Vince Evert]

I think with indoors tennis it's more than just the advantage the better server has. You get a cleaner strike as well. The less wind is a factor the higher Novak's chances surely are

unless in the event there has been a major rain disruption and unlikely to stop raining in the shorter term, they SHOULD NOT be playing Indoors in the Slams under any other circumstance.

 

[kskate2]

I say do it at 12-12

I say at 9-9

 

[GameSetAndMath]

FACTOID: Once upon a time, tennis was played with no tie breakers in ALL sets, not just in the fifth set.

 

[Vince Evert]

I know it's early days but you can see the closed roof is affecting Nadal's timing and missing shots he normally makes. Anyhow i'm done and being 5 am in the morning here will tape the Rest of the game and watch later if it's considered a classic with more variation of play than what we've had seen before with Nadal-Djokovic match-ups.

 

[Vince Evert]

FACTOID: Once upon a time, tennis was played with no tie breakers in ALL sets, not just in the fifth set.

Different era, different equipments, different courts speed. A final set tiebreaker. Bring it on !

 

[Moxie]

FACTOID: Once upon a time, tennis was played with no tie breakers in ALL sets, not just in the fifth set.

Yes, but you couldn't possibly be wishing for that. Where do you stand on changing the 5th set TB rule at Wimbledon.

 

[mrzz]

I say do it at 12-12 and make it a super tie breaker.

I am more on the side of leave it like it is, but with that I would agree. Other possibility would be no-ad games after 6 all.

 

[Moxie]

I am more on the side of leave it like it is, but with that I would agree. Other possibility would be no-ad games after 6 all.

I don't agree with switching to no-ad games. It doesn't exist otherwise in tennis, and I'm not clear that it helps. IMO, today clearly showed that no TB in the 5th hurts all of the players, and not just the ones in the match. Isner and Anderson both asked for it, and they are the ones who suffered for it, and may keep suffering for it, if you ask Isner, based on his experience. At a certain point, I don't know why tennis has to be that much of a war of attrition. Who does it serve?

 

[Moxie]

I say do it at 12-12 and make it a super tie breaker.

I also called for 12-all. Remind me what a super tie breaker is? First one to 10 or something?

 

[Fefe26]

I don't agree with switching to no-ad games. It doesn't exist otherwise in tennis, and I'm not clear that it helps. IMO, today clearly showed that no TB in the 5th hurts all of the players, and not just the ones in the match. Isner and Anderson both asked for it, and they are the ones who suffered for it, and may keep suffering for it, if you ask Isner, based on his experience. At a certain point, I don't know why tennis has to be that much of a war of attrition. Who does it serve?

For me, no ad games will take away the ecitment from tennis. I love to see players battle it out and the occasional racquet smashing.

 

[Moxie]

For me, no ad games will take away the ecitment from tennis. I love to see players battle it out and the occasional racquet smashing.

Agreed. Of all the things they might change, and don't like the idea of no-ad tennis. It adds hugely to the drama, and, yes, frustration.

 

[mrzz]

I don't agree with switching to no-ad games. It doesn't exist otherwise in tennis, and I'm not clear that it helps. IMO, today clearly showed that no TB in the 5th hurts all of the players, and not just the ones in the match. Isner and Anderson both asked for it, and they are the ones who suffered for it, and may keep suffering for it, if you ask Isner, based on his experience. At a certain point, I don't know why tennis has to be that much of a war of attrition. Who does it serve?

The no-ad game was just an odd suggestion. But, remember, TB at 12-all does not exits otherwise also. In fact, no tie-break in the fifth is already an exception in itself.

Most people complaining about this are journalists, who surely have links to TV stations, who complain about their messed up schedule. I generally completely ignore what these people have to say, but in this case I can ignore it twice, as it is so obviously self-serving.

Anyway, as I said I rather leave it as it is. Obviously asking the guys who were killing themselves out there right after the match would produce only one answer (specially the guy who lost).

It also does not matter one bit if it hurts the players. A competition is made to "hurt" the players: you do not win, you're out. You cannot win it quicker, you're dead in the next one. It is as simple as that.

As for to who does it serve, it is quite obvious to me: it serves everyone. The unpredictability of the outcome, of the timing, the fact that it shakes the so boringly square structure of everything... you really need to look at it from a bigger perspective. Every match that gets to 4 all in the fifth becomes tense and grabs attention, because, among other things of course, it may become a marathon. And still most of those matches end up at 6-4 or 7-5. But the public enjoyed it, people turned their streams on, commentators talked about the match and so on. Then some match goes 8-6. Oh, what a classic! The occasional marathon is a small price to pay for everything you have in return.

And in the marathon we get to see two guys killing themselves out there. Sports, after all, are just about that. Would you trade that moment were Anderson fell, got up, used his left hand with a strange grip to finally win the crucial point, at 28374625 all, for a mere fifth set tie-breaker? I wouldn't.

 

[Moxie]

I am more on the side of leave it like it is, but with that I would agree. Other possibility would be no-ad games after 6 all.

Sorry to quote you twice. I was looking for the video of Anderson interviewed by BBC, just as he was coming off the court. Can't find it yet. But a lot of people on the thread commented about it. He looked absolutely a shred of himself. He was nearly in tears. He could barely speak. He was very gracious about Isner, but you really had to feel for the guy who didn't so much feel that he'd won a tennis match, (Wimbledon SF, to be specific,) as much as a guy who'd just survived something that was eventually kind of awful. There is absolutely no need for that, and it doesn't serve the game, imo.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I also called for 12-all. Remind me what a super tie breaker is? First one to 10 or something?

Yes, instead of first one to 7 in the regular TB.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am more on the side of leave it like it is, but with that I would agree. Other possibility would be no-ad games after 6 all.

I would rather they continue the current system than use no ad games. I totally hate no ad games. It violates the spirit of tennis more than anything else.

 

[monfed]

Nice match. Bit too short for my taste, was just getting into it when it ended.

 

[Moxie]

The no-ad game was just an odd suggestion. But, remember, TB at 12-all does not exits otherwise also. In fact, no tie-break in the fifth is already an exception in itself.

Most people complaining about this are journalists, who surely have links to TV stations, who complain about their messed up schedule. I generally completely ignore what these people have to say, but in this case I can ignore it twice, as it is so obviously self-serving.

Anyway, as I said I rather leave it as it is. Obviously asking the guys who were killing themselves out there right after the match would produce only one answer (specially the guy who lost).

It also does not matter one bit if it hurts the players. A competition is made to "hurt" the players: you do not win, you're out. You cannot win it quicker, you're dead in the next one. It is as simple as that.

As for to who does it serve, it is quite obvious to me: it serves everyone. The unpredictability of the outcome, of the timing, the fact that it shakes the so boringly square structure of everything... you really need to look at it from a bigger perspective. Every match that gets to 4 all in the fifth becomes tense and grabs attention, because, among other things of course, it may become a marathon. And still most of those matches end up at 6-4 or 7-5. But the public enjoyed it, people turned their streams on, commentators talked about the match and so on. Then some match goes 8-6. Oh, what a classic! The occasional marathon is a small price to pay for everything you have in return.

And in the marathon we get to see two guys killing themselves out there. Sports, after all, are just about that. Would you trade that moment were Anderson fell, got up, used his left hand with a strange grip to finally win the crucial point, at 28374625 all, for a mere fifth set tie-breaker? I wouldn't.

Please read my above, for a partial response. The people complaining about this are not just journalists but players and spectators. Everyone on the thread today was calling for it. As to the rest of your points, I think you are rather inhumane to the players. They are human beings, after all, and human endurance has a limit. There are no substitutions in tennis. No one comes in to relieve. So eventually, something should intervene. You ask about that moment when Anderson went down and got up. Yes, I would trade it. Long matches are the only ones that really become classics. I've said before that the women are kind of screwed out of them because they don't play 3/5 in Majors. And I think they should. But for every one great point you get past 10-10, 11-11, or whatever, in a 5 set match, you are losing the players' ability to hold up for their next one. I'm fine if Wimbledon (and AO and RG) goes with something like a 12-12, then TB, or as GSM has suggested, super-TB. But what happened today started to look less like tennis and more like a train-wreck. Two people were getting hurt, and we were watching it happen.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I like the idea of the 5th set TB because I do not want fitness to be the only determining factor in winning a tennis match. Also, it has the potential to wreck everybody else's schedule, like today.
How about this: TB in the 5th set up to the final, but the final is no TB in the fifth. This way, nobody's schedule is affected and the final is a true test of both ability and fitness.

 

[mrzz]

Sorry for quoting you so many times bellow. Not sure when I'll have the time to post again so I am making the most of it.

Sorry to quote you twice. I was looking for the video of Anderson interviewed by BBC, just as he was coming off the court. Can't find it yet. But a lot of people on the thread commented about it. He looked absolutely a shred of himself. He was nearly in tears. He could barely speak. He was very gracious about Isner, but you really had to feel for the guy who didn't so much feel that he'd won a tennis match, (Wimbledon SF, to be specific,) as much as a guy who'd just survived something that was eventually kind of awful. There is absolutely no need for that, and it doesn't serve the game, imo.

I saw the interview live. Anderson was very gracious and very sportsman like towards Isner. But again, he is an interested party. He knows that the battle hurts his chances, so it is only natural he would say what he did.

I think you are rather inhumane to the players.

Thanks for that. I am proudly inhumane to the players.

They are human beings, after all, and human endurance has a limit.

But that limit is surely less than 26-24. It went 70-68 once and both survived.

Everyone on the thread today was calling for it

And watching. You have two all time greats playing a match that may have historical implications, and Anderson Isner on the same day. And most people are talking about Anderson Isner.

Two people were getting hurt, and we were watching it happen.

People watch boxing, MMA, karatê and etc. People turn the TV on at the start of motor races because this is the part were most accidents happen. This is part of the appeal. There is a fine line between the appreciation of the nobility of the human effort, and the mere enjoyment of human suffering. Sports as entertainment makes a living out of this ambiguity.

And I will tell you I really doubt it will change, specially at Wimbledon. No, it is not about tradition. In general, people who are responsible for tradition are precisely the ones who care less about it, and I am pretty sure this applies to Wimbledon. I do not follow the WTA, but I remember pretty well when Wimbledon started to schedule matches between "pretty" players on central court while you had multi major winners on smaller courts. So much for respect for the sport. It is the same tournament who changed the grass in order to slow it down -- explicitly saying that they were favoring a different playing style. I understand the argument, but my point here is that this is completely against tradition. I say all this for one reason: if long five set matches were not interesting for the tournament organizers, I am pretty sure Wimbledon would be the first tio drop it.

 

[mrzz]

I would rather they continue the current system than use no ad games. I totally hate no ad games. It violates the spirit of tennis more than anything else.

I see your point. Again, I was just venting some odd possibilities.