Your perspective on the experimental format - Page 4 - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #46 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 05:04 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 37
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Quote:
Originally Posted by beachman49 View Post
Super tie breakers are a bastardization. It's a complete crap shoot to 10 points.

But in today's AYSO United States, I guess actually being the best is not necessarily required to be a 'winner'.

Your baseball concept made me cry. What is wrong with the US? Where you actually had to be good to win not just find a gimmick.

Here is an idea: Let's really shorten it up. Three super tie breakers for each match. At least it would be the same playing format the entire match. And nobody would be tired.

Your great drama argument is phooey... nobody cares about gimmick drama. It's great drama when it's legitimate drama. PS... ratings go up in those extra inning games, multi overtime hockey games and IN THE LAST SET OF MAJORS. Funny how fans actually attending tennis matches cheer for the trailing opponent to force a final set... they LIKE the drama. Not the 'made for TV' quick finish drama.
What does the AYSO have to do with this? Or for that matter questioning the US?

Unfortunately I didn't reply to you the same way I should have replied to 3gtennis earlier "Since I am probably the only one on this board that likes the super tiebreaker format, I will refrain from opposing anything in your comment because of the backlash I will receive."

And in your case, crazy points about playing 3 super tiebreakers in place of sets, closest to the pin and two strikes in baseball. I see you are passionate about your thoughts but debating crazy points is non-sense.

I do appreciate your comments and wish you well!
TennisDad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 06:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 250
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

And UCLA loses to Duke courtesy of THREE of these super tie breakers.

What a joke.... let's change the rules 2/3 of the way through a match.

Next up... flip a coin.

PS... the super tie break really is the about the same thing as going to ONE strike or TWO balls in baseball. 2/3 of the way through the game we are gonna shorten this thing up to about 10 minutes.

Last edited by beachman49; Feb 10th, 2014 at 06:44 PM.
beachman49 is offline  
post #48 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 07:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,899
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Going through yesterday's results (not get very far yet). No doubt one of many, but here's a match with 6 singles super tiebreaks: http://www.utamavs.com/sports/w-tenn...020914aaa.html
Radical is offline  
post #49 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 08:18 PM
Senior Member
 
tie_breaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,210
                     
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

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.
tie_breaker is offline  
post #50 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 09:38 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 37
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Quote:
Originally Posted by tie_breaker View Post
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.
My daughter played a Level 5 tournament this weekend where they started the sets at 2-2 and had a match tiebreaker for the 3rd set due to a total rain out on Saturday. I know everyone hates the 3rd set tiebreaker, but would a 3rd set starting at 2-2 have any support?

BTW, my daughter lost her final match in a 3rd super tiebreaker after winning the second set. So the one who supports the 3rd set super breaker got burned by it this weekend. Should make a few of you happy
TennisDad is offline  
post #51 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 09:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 250
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Well said Tie Breaker.

One thing is for sure, this limited experiment has impacted a decent number of dual matches and many individual matches. It's not a 'rare' occurrence that can just be ignored in evaluating the concepts.

Assuming the NCAA goal is to shorten match lengths (whether I agree or not), then a more fair way is to use the NCAA Playoff rule and just stop unfinished matches when the doubles point is clinched or the dual match is clinched. On average that would be about 45 min to an hour. Except for the tight matches at which point let them play.
beachman49 is offline  
post #52 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 09:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,060
                     
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Quote:
Originally Posted by TennisDad View Post
My daughter played a Level 5 tournament this weekend where they started the sets at 2-2 and had a match tiebreaker for the 3rd set due to a total rain out on Saturday. I know everyone hates the 3rd set tiebreaker, but would a 3rd set starting at 2-2 have any support?

BTW, my daughter lost her final match in a 3rd super tiebreaker after winning the second set. So the one who supports the 3rd set super breaker got burned by it this weekend. Should make a few of you happy
How does your daughter feel about the 3rd set super breaker? I'm going to guess she's not a fan?

I don't see starting the set at 2-2 accomplishing anything. That gives each opponent 2 games they haven't earned.
slickshoes510 is offline  
post #53 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 09:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 124
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Innings vs sets, big change in a sport is big change. I dislike the shortening of doubles, which is the most exciting part of college tennis in my opinion. The attack on ONLY college tennis is what really disturbs me. Trying to pin down where the attacks are coming from has been frustrating. All three organizations insinuate one of three reasons that they think is a reason to change tennis and they throw them out at different times. The number of people against this type of change generated a huge following last year and everyone spoke up. These were groups that included players, parents, coaches and fans. That is the demographic that should be listened to!
3gtennis is offline  
post #54 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 09:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 250
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

This is apparently coming from the NCAA (rep) who feel the dual match length needs to be shortened in # of hours to closer to 3 hours. Administrators pushing an agenda I believe. Praying they listen to the athlete and coach feedback. If the goal is shorter on average there are ways to do it without creating this crap shoot third set gambit.

Let's remember that UCLA beat ranked USD in the first round of ITA indoor qualies a few weeks ago in less than 2 hours because they stopped at the doubles point and then at 4-0. No 3rd set tie breakers were needed.

If they stop matches at 4 pts, what are we talking? Maybe 15% of matches go past 3 hours, or 3 1/2 hrs, after the 4th pt is decided.. particularly if doubles is also stopped at the point. I observe most fans leave after the 4th point anyway.

And for the kids not getting to finish, is that worse than losing with these crazy super tie breakers?
beachman49 is offline  
post #55 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 10th, 2014, 10:00 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 37
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Quote:
Originally Posted by slickshoes510 View Post
How does your daughter feel about the 3rd set super breaker? I'm going to guess she's not a fan?

I don't see starting the set at 2-2 accomplishing anything. That gives each opponent 2 games they haven't earned.

She would definitely rather play a third set and hated the super tiebreaker at first. However, it is played so much (even at National tournaments) that she is comfortable playing either way now.

My only thought with 2-2 is that it shortens the set and still keeps the normal scoring (shortening the match time to make the powers to be happy and keeping normal game scoring in place).
TennisDad is offline  
post #56 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 12th, 2014, 03:11 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

I've experienced a half dozen experimental matches on the women's side. I don't like this experimental 6-point doubles format whatsoever, but I think that no ad doubles play is considerably worse than a shorten doubles set. The doubles outcomes with no ad play seem to be far more arbitrary than shortening a match to 6 games.

Moreover, I don't see any advantage in changing the doubles format because of a cable broadcast. Have any of you joined a basketball game in progress when another game ran over? All that is required is for the teams to begin doubles at a time in advance of the cable start time. The cameras just pick up the action very late in doubles. The doubles video time would be compressed since the beginning games are not broadcast, but the fans at the match get treated to the entirety of the action.
philbert is offline  
post #57 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 12th, 2014, 10:31 AM
Senior Member
 
GBTG_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Paisley
Posts: 10,443
                     
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Doubles no-ad makes 100% sense as it is what happens on the Pro Tour.
GBTG_Fan is offline  
post #58 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 12th, 2014, 01:50 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 73
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Quote:
Originally Posted by philbert View Post
I've experienced a half dozen experimental matches on the women's side. I don't like this experimental 6-point doubles format whatsoever, but I think that no ad doubles play is considerably worse than a shorten doubles set. The doubles outcomes with no ad play seem to be far more arbitrary than shortening a match to 6 games.

Moreover, I don't see any advantage in changing the doubles format because of a cable broadcast. Have any of you joined a basketball game in progress when another game ran over? All that is required is for the teams to begin doubles at a time in advance of the cable start time. The cameras just pick up the action very late in doubles. The doubles video time would be compressed since the beginning games are not broadcast, but the fans at the match get treated to the entirety of the action.
That's something I never thought of but you are so right. Picking up the match in progress would be the answer to all the problems.
TennisSee is offline  
post #59 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 12th, 2014, 03:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 250
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

Quote:
Originally Posted by TennisSee View Post
That's something I never thought of but you are so right. Picking up the match in progress would be the answer to all the problems.
I work in sports TV world. Other than a couple of mega-conferences that have their own obscure networks doing 2 or 3 matches per year this TV argument is a non starter.

You can always edit. ESPN did this and has still discontinued their NCAA finals coverage. It costs a lot of money to do events and college tennnis involves multiple courts (cameras/crews) simultaneously. And the audience is minimal at best. You could shorten this to 1 hour and it's not going to change.

As an example, water polo takes less than an hour to play and can be done in one pool very easily. Hmmmmm, I still do not see much water polo on tv either.

This TV argument is a misdirection play toward another objective: Shorter days.
beachman49 is offline  
post #60 of 71 (permalink) Old Feb 12th, 2014, 04:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 124
 
Re: Your perspective on the experimental format

I said before the number of HD cameras and crews needed to have quality broadcasts that the conferences will turn out for other sports that only need two cameras has created a cost estimate that shocked conference leaders. Televise one per school during conference play and let the rest video stream. Start the telecast 30 minutes in and edit where needed to shorten. pick up a few important out of conference matches if wanted and the conference tournaments. This gives those conference networks some extra filler programming in the football down time and lets them show they are fair to all sports.
3gtennis is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome