Should Wimbledon adopt a last Set Tie-Break?

[Moxie]

@vince evert requested a poll and a thread. I'm interested in the question, too, so I'll go for it. After the SFs this year on the men's side, (and not to mention Isner/Mahut a few years back,) there is a lot of call for a rule change. I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about the idea, and what folks would prefer, if the rule were changed.

 

[DarthFed]

I say at 10-10 or 12-12. That's plenty long enough

 

[Moxie]

@mrzz and I had a nice chat about it. We are in differing camps. Personally, I think it's time to institute the tie-break, in some form or other. What do you all think?

 

[Horsa]

I think it should be left as is.

 

[Vince Evert]

8 games all i say and not just for Wimbledon either BUT ALL SLAMS. Also the US Open should change (to 8-8) to bring it in line with Wimbly (and other Slams). Hell even Davis Cup has introduced final set tiebreak this year (not sure if Fed Cup does, someone can enlighten me). Therefore it is a sign of the times to move forward and give tennis games a more defined finish time which would suit and please spectators and not doubt television broadcasters.

 

[monfed]

No thanks. The fifth set drama is what makes 5 set matches interesting. Also, deciding a match on a tiebreak is the equivalent of penalties in football which is cruel.

 

[Vince Evert]

No thanks. The fifth set drama is what makes 5 set matches interesting. Also, deciding a match on a tiebreak is the equivalent of penalties in football which is cruel.

And how else would you decide the outcome of a Football , especially World Cup game then ? It maybe cruel to some purists (which i don't agree) but Football(Soccer) and Tennis needs more defining finish times. TV commercial broadcasters especially would welcome it.

 

[Denis]

@Murat Baslamisli had a good suggestion. Normal tie break up till the final, no tie break in the fifth in the final. I am with that.

 

[Horsa]

And how else would you decide the outcome of a Football , especially World Cup game then ? It maybe cruel to some purists (which i don't agree) but Football(Soccer) and Tennis needs more defining finish times. TV commercial broadcasters especially would welcome it.

I agree that sports need more definite finishing times but I think that should be done by either starting earlier (like what about a 9 a.m. start for Wimbledon) or just timing saying the match is going to be played for a certain amount of time & the result at the finish time is the end result no matter what whether it's a draw or not. This would also speed up what some people call time-wasters because it would force them to play within a time-limit to get the best score they can under time-pressure. After that time other matches should be played so they're not running into each other.

 

[DarthFed]

I agree that sports need more definite finishing times but I think that should be done by either starting earlier (like what about a 9 a.m. start for Wimbledon) or just timing saying the match is going to be played for a certain amount of time & the result at the finish time is the end result no matter what whether it's a draw or not. This would also speed up what some people call time-wasters because it would force them to play within a time-limit to get the best score they can under time-pressure. After that time other matches should be played so they're not running into each other.

I do think Wimbledon should start earlier as well, their scheduling has led to problems for many years now since most courts don't have lights. However, I don't think you can have a situation where a match is called after a certain amount of time, a match must be finished for there to be a winner unless someone forfeits due to injury.

I do like Murat's idea as well. I say that or the tiebreak kicks in at 10-10 or 12-12 at the latest.

 

[Federberg]

blame American tv for the start time generally. Nothing wrong with the start time for the final though. With the roofs this days that seems fine to me. I kind of like the idea of 5th set tie breaks up until the final. Let them go as long as they want for the final though. That would be something to see

 

[Horsa]

I do think Wimbledon should start earlier as well, their scheduling has led to problems for many years now since most courts don't have lights. However, I don't think you can have a situation where a match is called after a certain amount of time, a match must be finished for there to be a winner unless someone forfeits due to injury.

I do like Murat's idea as well. I say that or the tiebreak kicks in at 10-10 or 12-12 at the latest.

I think that if they started earlier they could probably finish earlier. Hmm! It was just an idea. I just shared it at the ideas stage & didn't think about the practicality of the situation + I answered B.C (before coffee in this case or peppermint tea sometimes). I don't function properly without coffee or peppermint tea. I get your point.

 

[mrzz]

There are no tie-breaks in the fifth in 3 of the majors. We, the no tie-breakers in the fifth brotherhood, are on the winning side. Most of you are on the losing side. So here is my final argument:

We are winning, you are losing, nananananaahhh!

 

[Horsa]

There are no tie-breaks in the fifth in 3 of the majors. We, the no tie-breakers in the fifth brotherhood, are on the winning side. Most of you are on the losing side. So here is my final argument:

We are winning, you are losing, nananananaahhh!

You'll be singing the Queen song "We are the champions" next. Lol. Long time no see. It's nice seeing you around. I missed you.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree that sports need more definite finishing times but I think that should be done by either starting earlier (like what about a 9 a.m. start for Wimbledon) or just timing saying the match is going to be played for a certain amount of time & the result at the finish time is the end result no matter what whether it's a draw or not. This would also speed up what some people call time-wasters because it would force them to play within a time-limit to get the best score they can under time-pressure. After that time other matches should be played so they're not running into each other.

Absolute No!

This is a basic violation of the nature and spirit of tennis.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is my revised take on the issue.

1. Have TBs at 12-12 in the fifth set. (same as before)
2. But, not a super tie-breaker. The STBs are boring as the early points in them don't have much significance. In a regular TB (reach 7 or higher with two point difference), every point becomes important right from the first one. So, let us just use the regular tie breaker. (revised opinion)
3. Finally, I like Murat's suggestion of no tie breakers in the final (cosigning)
4. Also, let us make the rules the same in all four grand slams.

 

[Horsa]

Absolute No!

This is a basic violation of the nature and spirit of tennis.

Like I explained earlier it was an idea that I hadn't thought out properly as to the practicality of things & I hadn't had my coffee or peppermint tea & I can't function without coffee or peppermint tea. Most sports are timed & sometimes have draws. Tennis is also different with the scoring system. Why is that? Why can't matches be timed & sometimes have draws like most sports?

 

[atttomole]

I agree for the most part with the others, but the tiebreak starting at a score of 20-20.

 

[monfed]

I think a sensible middle ground would be to have TB except final. Finals is the last game so players can give it their all.

 

[nehmeth]

Tiebreaker at 9-9 in the final set.