Should Wimbledon adopt a last Set Tie-Break?

[Horsa]

Tiebreaker at 9-9 in the final set.

Aww! Bless! Your avatars just make me wish I could stroke your cute dog but since you showed me both of your dogs I couldn't miss the other 1 out. (I come from a dog family so was brought up with them & had them most of my life so far. My parents had the 1st dog I knew before they had me & my Gran & Aunts had good dogs.)

 

[Moxie]

As far as I can tell, the majority seems to think some sort of TB in the final set should be adopted, though where to start it is a bit all over the place (6-6, 8-8, 9-9, 10-10, 12-12 have been mentioned.) Plenty seem to be in favor of some sort of TB at the end of the final set in all matches up until the final, then let the final play out. I like this. Also mentioned was making the policy consistent across all Majors. I'd also like to see that, though I'm not sure how hard it is to make them all agree on something. I will say that I think a 6-6 TB at the USO is too short for the final set, at the least in the final, though I'm not sure it's ever come to that, in the men's game. I guess we'll see if the recent turn of events will cause any change. If the players band together for something to be done.

 

[Horsa]

As far as I can tell, the majority seems to think some sort of TB in the final set should be adopted, though where to start it is a bit all over the place (6-6, 8-8, 9-9, 10-10, 12-12 have been mentioned.) Plenty seem to be in favor of some sort of TB at the end of the final set in all matches up until the final, then let the final play out. I like this. Also mentioned was making the policy consistent across all Majors. I'd also like to see that, though I'm not sure how hard it is to make them all agree on something. I will say that I think a 6-6 TB at the USO is too short for the final set, at the least in the final, though I'm not sure it's ever come to that, in the men's game. I guess we'll see if the recent turn of events will cause any change. If the players band together for something to be done.

I guess you could add all the numbers up & divide by how many there are to get an average number & use that or use the most popular number or the 1 straight in the middle. None of us are in charge of the rules or way things are run though so what we say won't be taken into account or make a blind bit of difference.

 

[Moxie]

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!

I'm going to quote this 'eloquent' post to give you your due after my last. B-) You get a chance to state your own case, since we actually had an interesting conversation about it on another thread. I think that the no-TBs serves neither the players nor the fans, at least in all rounds before the F. Isner and Mahut have spoken about how long they were wrecked after their long match. And Isner and Anderson both called for a rule change after their marathon on Friday. My first argument would be for the welfare of the players. My second would be that, esp. in early stages, no one wants it or cares, and my third would be you nearly guarantee that the player that survives a marathon can't win her/his next match. At some point, it stops being tennis and becomes merely war of attrition. But I know you have a counter-argument, if you care to make it again.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Interestingly ESPN did a poll on this issue and the winner was "leave it as is".

 

[mrzz]

I'm going to quote this 'eloquent' post to give you your due after my last. B-) You get a chance to state your own case, since we actually had an interesting conversation about it on another thread. I think that the no-TBs serves neither the players nor the fans, at least in all rounds before the F. Isner and Mahut have spoken about how long they were wrecked after their long match. And Isner and Anderson both called for a rule change after their marathon on Friday. My first argument would be for the welfare of the players. My second would be that, esp. in early stages, no one wants it or cares, and my third would be you nearly guarantee that the player that survives a marathon can't win her/his next match. At some point, it stops being tennis and becomes merely war of attrition. But I know you have a counter-argument, if you care to make it again.

I am in no mood for it, but just because it is you:

Ok, I agree with a TB on 12-all. Half my resistance was just being a pain in the ass. But the arguments for the fifth set tie-brear, anyway, in general are weak ones. Statistically, it is simply not true that players who play a long fifth are toast in the next match. Of course Isner lost after that absurd one, but Anderson himself survived the 13-11 against Federer, last year Muller won 15-13 I guess against Nadal and went on one more, there are a lot of examples. It is just the completely off the curve cases that almost guarantee a loss. By the way, today Anderson's best set was precisely the third...

Why does it matter? Because it is quite stupid to change the rule for all based on what happens to just a few (and by few I mean basically just two, Isner Mahut and Isner Anderson. All the others for sure do not bring any statistical difference). So the 12-all is a reasonable middle ground, as we do not get too much matches that go beyond that anyway.

I do not buy much the "welfare of the players" argument. Again, people simply exaggerate things. I checked one thing you mentioned on the other post, that Isner and Mahut needed months to recover from that match: Isner got to the semis on his very next tournament, and Mahut got to the second round, and they were very early in the North American pre-USO wing.

 

[Moxie]

I am in no mood for it, but just because it is you:

Ok, I agree with a TB on 12-all. Half my resistance was just being a pain in the ass. But the arguments for the fifth set tie-brear, anyway, in general are weak ones. Statistically, it is simply not true that players who play a long fifth are toast in the next match. Of course Isner lost after that absurd one, but Anderson himself survived the 13-11 against Federer, last year Muller won 15-13 I guess against Nadal and went on one more, there are a lot of examples. It is just the completely off the curve cases that almost guarantee a loss. By the way, today Anderson's best set was precisely the third...

Why does it matter? Because it is quite stupid to change the rule for all based on what happens to just a few (and by few I mean basically just two, Isner Mahut and Isner Anderson. All the others for sure do not bring any statistical difference). So the 12-all is a reasonable middle ground, as we do not get too much matches that go beyond that anyway.

I do not buy much the "welfare of the players" argument. Again, people simply exaggerate things. I checked one thing you mentioned on the other post, that Isner and Mahut needed months to recover from that match: Isner got to the semis on his very next tournament, and Mahut got to the second round, and they were very early in the North American pre-USO wing.

And now I'm too tired to reply, but because you did: OK, you're in with the TB at 12-12. I get that you're saying, essentially, that it doesn't happen often enough to matter, or effect the outcomes, across the board. However, when it does become the match that never ends, I think it matters. There was a wonderful baseball writer, W.P. Kinsella, who wrote a magical-realist novel about a baseball game that never ends, and I thought of it during the Isner v. Mahut match. Baseball, as you may not know, is also a game with no proscribed ending. But it is a team sport. I don't think you can ask individual players to play into the possible forever. It doesn't serve anyone.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

How about a compromise? If both players are over 6' 3" we do tie break at 9-9. If only one player is over 6'3", we do tie break at 12-12. If neither player is over 6' 3" then there is no tie-break.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Nothing to beat Cricket. They play for five days and spend eight hours each day and often the result is a draw.

 

[Moxie]

Nothing to beat Cricket. They play for five days and spend eight hours each day and often the result is a draw.

Thanks for taking it seriously.

 

[mrzz]

And now I'm too tired to reply, but because you did: OK, you're in with the TB at 12-12. I get that you're saying, essentially, that it doesn't happen often enough to matter, or effect the outcomes, across the board. However, when it does become the match that never ends, I think it matters. There was a wonderful baseball writer, W.P. Kinsella, who wrote a magical-realist novel about a baseball game that never ends, and I thought of it during the Isner v. Mahut match. Baseball, as you may not know, is also a game with no proscribed ending. But it is a team sport. I don't think you can ask individual players to play into the possible forever. It doesn't serve anyone.

I was just trying to look for the long matches and it happens that really just a few have occurred. Actually in terms of long matches the Davis Cup has much more. A 17-15 in the fifth among Cilic and Querrey from 2012 was in second place until this year. My point is that the possibility of the match to go on and on is interesting, and intriguing. I really thought the 12-all could be a sensible option but now, after seeing that so few matches ever went over that limit, I am second guessing myself. I am really in doubt between a a breaker at 12-all, or no tie-break at all.

 

[Moxie]

My argument would be that it doesn't matter that it happens rarely, but that it happens at all.

 

[10isfan]

I wonder why people even want to watch a really long match. I’m thinking first to four games per set would make matches more exciting.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I wonder why people even want to watch a really long match. I’m thinking first to four games per set would make matches more exciting.

No, that is too simplistic. Then, the moment someone gets a break, the set is almost over. There is not much time to mount a come back after goofing off.

 

[Vince Evert]

As far as I can tell, the majority seems to think some sort of TB in the final set should be adopted, though where to start it is a bit all over the place (6-6, 8-8, 9-9, 10-10, 12-12 have been mentioned.) Plenty seem to be in favor of some sort of TB at the end of the final set in all matches up until the final, then let the final play out. I like this. Also mentioned was making the policy consistent across all Majors. I'd also like to see that, though I'm not sure how hard it is to make them all agree on something. I will say that I think a 6-6 TB at the USO is too short for the final set, at the least in the final, though I'm not sure it's ever come to that, in the men's game. I guess we'll see if the recent turn of events will cause any change. If the players band together for something to be done.

Good on ya Moxie and thanks for putting this to a poll.

The tiebreak itself, should it be up to 7 points with a two point advantage? up to 10 points w/ two point advantage ? other ...?

 

[Mile]

Best of Tennis would be if match before would not interfere match after them. Many people lost games because due to interfering.

 

[monfed]

They should have a flexible rule. If two servebots then fifth set TB, if not then no TB. Simples.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

Or someone could teach Isner how to return a serve because really it seems to be his matches where this is an issue.

 

[britbox]

Like tiebreakers except for the fifth in the final only.

 

[Vince Evert]

Or someone could teach Isner how to return a serve because really it seems to be his matches where this is an issue.

when big John is retired from the game i reckon many of us will be calling for the return of advantage final set, in all the rounds at the GS.