The experimental format is like saying, letís play tennis one way for 85-90% of the match, but if the set is tied at 1-1, letís play tennis another way for 10-15% of the match, in order to decide the winner. This is a big fundamental change in how tennis is played, not only because it changes the rules, but because these modified rules determines the winner. Does it make sense for a new way that is played 10-15% of the match; determine the winner of the match?
A tie-breaker was only instituted to decide a set, when there is a tie at 6-6. A tie-breaker was never instituted to decide the winner of a match, unless there is a 6-6 tie in the third set. Changing how a tie-breaker is to applied in a match, changes not only how tennis is played, but more importantly how tennis is decided.
These fundamental changes are so drastic that it is no longer tennis any more.
Players who grew up playing tennis with these basic fundamentals are being told now that the rules changed that is now played this new way and forget the 10 years you played it the real way.
Tennis is a game of inches. One unlucky shot and break point, the set is decided. It is common to lose a set, but at least a player has a chance to play another set to come back and another set to decide the match. That is how it has always been played. Players have a mindset playing tennis this way. Changing it will change the sport.