PDA

View Full Version : US Open No Tiebreak


jzrnsk
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:15 PM
I am a purist, I like Grand Slams to all have no tiebreaks. That way people have to be good at the whole game, including returning serve, to win matches. But Tiebreaks in the first four sets is the only way to speed things up, so I guess it's okay like that, even if I like it the other way.
However, I hate the fact that US Open fifth setters always end in one lousy, boring tiebreak! US is the only GS to have this, and it sucks!!! It is simply boring to watch tiebreaks!!! Those who play better under pressure, like those who can ace do well at the US because of this rule!!! Without pressure, we will see tennis from the actual best players of the sport. :D

So who likes this idea?

Uranium
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:16 PM
Capriati lost 3 3rd set tiebreak semis at the USO:(
Dementieva, Seles and Henin.
I agree in a way, the tiebreak usually is a bad way to end the match in a slam.

iGOAT
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:17 PM
Yeah, I wish they would ditch them.

mr_burns
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:20 PM
I thought I wouldn't like it, but to watch a match with a rd set tie break can be so thrilling..with the serve strenght of most women it is more important on the mens tour (see wimbledon final)

elena used to be the 3rd set tiebreak queen..maybe that's why i liked it

Fantasy Hero
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:21 PM
I think it's much better to have a "normal" 3rd/5th set in the USO

AndreConrad
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:22 PM
Agreed on the fact that US Open should follow the rules at other slams. I disagree that tiebreaks are boring; they are not especially in women comeptition. They favor, however, a specific profile of a player.

fnuf7
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:23 PM
I agree...whilst I wouldn't want the tiebreak to go altogether I certainly wouldn't want it in the deciding set. I know they want tennis to speed up so they can get more tv deals & casual fans etc but I hate that a GS is potentially decided with tiebreak...I mean you can play terribly & just scrape through holding serve all day & then just get lucky for 7 points or your opponent can just get really unlucky for 7 pts. Some tiebreaks are great & played well but sometimes it's a bit like a lucky dip as to who ends up winning it & I don't think that should decide a GS in the final set.

I will say though that if Ivo Karlovic is playing then they should just immediately start with tiebreaks & forget playing up to 6-6 in the sets. :p

Sexysova
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:23 PM
third set TB is IMO the worst thing to finish the matches, I would cancel it everywhere..

Fantasy Hero
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:32 PM
third set TB is IMO the worst thing to finish the matches, I would cancel it everywhere..

yeah...i agree with you...but probably they don't do that because it would be too hard for a player to play many tournaments in a row...i think at least they should cancel it from the finals of every tournaments and in the Tier I (i don't remember their new name!)

Sexysova
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:34 PM
yeah...i agree with you...but probably they don't do that because it would be too hard for a player to play many tournaments in a row...i think at least they should cancel it from the finals of every tournaments and in the Tier I (i don't remember their new name!)

well.. I could agree about that, for sure, but I think there're not a lot of matches which end 7-6 in third.. at least not the same player plays a lot of matches of this kind..

Edinboro
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:59 PM
I actually dont mind the third set tiebrakers. Every other slam is notable for something. Let The US Open be different. I could care less.

miffedmax
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:48 PM
Exactly. With two hardcourt slams, let this be what sets the US Open apart. All us 'mericans have short attention spans anyways.

What were we talking about?

spartanfan
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:54 PM
I prefer the 3/5th set tiebreak. If not having a last set tiebreak is so great then why don't they use it at other tournaments outside of the three slams? If you want to be a top elite tennis player, then you have to deal with big pressure situations and points, ie. the tiebreak. Plus it speeds things along, some of these mens matches (ie. Wimbledon final) can drag on for WAY too long.

fnuf7
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:21 PM
I prefer the 3/5th set tiebreak. If not having a last set tiebreak is so great then why don't they use it at other tournaments outside of the three slams? If you want to be a top elite tennis player, then you have to deal with big pressure situations and points, ie. the tiebreak. Plus it speeds things along, some of these mens matches (ie. Wimbledon final) can drag on for WAY too long.

Yeah but that's part of the appeal, the fact that the match will not end til someone can break & hold...or hold & break, depends who's serves first etc. That Wimbledon final was a prime example, tension supreme & way more than if you knew all they had to do was get to 6-6 & then they'd have a straightforward tiebreak & the final set would probably all be over in an hour absolute max. I pushed my Sunday dinner back by like 4 hours so I could see the whole final, didn't even want to leave to get the food started so it could cook in the background whilst I watched, it was that exciting & unpredictable. Tiebreaks suck out the drama at the end of a final.

Pebbles
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:24 PM
I agree and disagree. It's kind of unfair because the tie-break can really ruin the momentum a player has built up.

Gumbycat
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:36 PM
The last set tiebreaker evens up the First Server Advantage. In a last set tiebreaker, the player who serves first has the complete advantage of only having to break serve once after the 9th game of the final set. With a tiebreaker, the players are basically even at the start of the tiebreaker.

Ciarán
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:37 PM
I agree with you.

CrossCourt~Rally
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:45 PM
I agree that they should play out the 3rd set :bounce:

disco_rage
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:50 PM
Nah. I like the final set tiebreak at the US Open.
Sometimes playing on in final set favours the person serving first... i.e Wimbledon, i reckon Roddick might have pulled off the win if he had been serving first, for example, it was huge who served first in that final set.

samn
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:57 PM
The one thing I don't like about final set tiebreakers is that because sometimes one minibreak is all that is needed to win, the outcome of the match might be influenced by a gust of wind or a letcord or even a bad line call. At least when they play until one player establishes a margin of two games, the person serving has to lose at least four points on his/her serve to be broken.

If they got rid of final set tiebreakers now, Martina Navratilova will be pissed off like crazy as she lost two US Open finals in a third set tiebreaker (vs Austin in 1981 6-1 6-7 6-7 and vs Mandlikova in 1985 6-7 6-1 6-7). (She did, however, beat Graf in a marvellous third set breaker in the 1986 US semis, though (6-1 6-7 7-6).

miffedmax
Jul 9th, 2009, 07:25 PM
Any match--see Rena vs. Lena--can come done to a single shot. That's the beautiful cruelty of tennis and why we watch it.

LCS
Jul 9th, 2009, 07:28 PM
Dementieva's 3rd set TB records goes clearly against the opinion that a TB favours good servers..:wavey:

ajmo!
Jul 9th, 2009, 07:40 PM
The last set tiebreaker evens up the First Server Advantage. In a last set tiebreaker, the player who serves first has the complete advantage of only having to break serve once after the 9th game of the final set. With a tiebreaker, the players are basically even at the start of the tiebreaker.

I agree. :yeah:

KournikovaFan91
Jul 9th, 2009, 07:54 PM
It stupid that USO do that, they clearly introduced it so TV stations wouldn't have to alter programming if matches went on forever :rolleyes:

USO is by far the worst slam imo.

jzrnsk
Jul 9th, 2009, 08:14 PM
It stupid that USO do that, they clearly introduced it so TV stations wouldn't have to alter programming if matches went on forever :rolleyes:

USO is by far the worst slam imo.

I agree, Wimby is the best, then French, then Aussie and USO worst.

spartanfan
Jul 9th, 2009, 08:52 PM
Yeah but that's part of the appeal, the fact that the match will not end til someone can break & hold...or hold & break, depends who's serves first etc. That Wimbledon final was a prime example, tension supreme & way more than if you knew all they had to do was get to 6-6 & then they'd have a straightforward tiebreak & the final set would probably all be over in an hour absolute max. I pushed my Sunday dinner back by like 4 hours so I could see the whole final, didn't even want to leave to get the food started so it could cook in the background whilst I watched, it was that exciting & unpredictable. Tiebreaks suck out the drama at the end of a final.
I hear what you're saying, but I couldn't disagree more. With a deciding set tiebreak, players know that it all comes down to the execution of their serve and return essentially. Rarely do you see a player just reel off 7 straight points in a row to win a tiebreak. To me the long tiebreaks where it's like 10-8 or something is really more intense and pressure filled then endless games of trying to hold serve and break. In tie breaks there's so much back and forth with points, where a player may have a mini-break, only to lose the next two points or so. To me its much more drama filled and better for the game.

spartanfan
Jul 9th, 2009, 08:58 PM
I agree, Wimby is the best, then French, then Aussie and USO worst.
Couldn't disagree more. I enjoy the USOpen so much because of the night matches that go missing at the French and Wimby. The French is usually won by a dirtballer who-traditionally- dominates on just one surface. Wimbledon is cool, but I think they take themselves way too serious and there's really only 4 weeks of grass court play. Heck when was the last time Venus or Serena played a grass court warm up tournament? Yet look at how they have dominated the All England Club the better part of 10 years. I expect more female players next year to start skipping the warmups as well-hell its not like it does them any good.:lol: I like the Australian because its really the start of the tennis season and often comes down to the heat and fitness.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:04 PM
I am a purist, I like Grand Slams to all have no tiebreaks. That way people have to be good at the whole game, including returning serve, to win matches. But Tiebreaks in the first four sets is the only way to speed things up, so I guess it's okay like that, even if I like it the other way.
However, I hate the fact that US Open fifth setters always end in one lousy, boring tiebreak! US is the only GS to have this, and it sucks!!! It is simply boring to watch tiebreaks!!! Those who play better under pressure, like those who can ace do well at the US because of this rule!!! Without pressure, we will see tennis from the actual best players of the sport. :D

So who likes this idea?

I agree :yeah: No final set tiebreaks at the USO!!! It seems a little pointless to me.

Juju Nostalgique
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:06 PM
OMG! Last Sunday I had to take relaxing pills to stand the Federer final! :scared: :eek:

No way for 2-3-hour long last sets! :smash:

LightWarrior
Jul 9th, 2009, 10:39 PM
I actually dont mind the third set tiebrakers. Every other slam is notable for something.

Oh yeah ? And what are those ? Strawberry cream perhaps... Seriously it's a shame the the US Open would single itself out from the other 3. The rules are the rules.

LightWarrior
Jul 9th, 2009, 10:46 PM
The last set tiebreaker evens up the First Server Advantage. In a last set tiebreaker, the player who serves first has the complete advantage of only having to break serve once after the 9th game of the final set. With a tiebreaker, the players are basically even at the start of the tiebreaker.

Well, having to start the tie break on your serve is a disadvantage because you serve only once, first point. If it goes on serve, at 5/6 you face MP...

fightserena!!!
Jul 9th, 2009, 10:47 PM
I don't really mind either way, as I agree with what the Williams usually say about every rule - it doesn't really matter, just play your game and win the points and you do well... but I would like to point out to all those who keep going on about the tiebrake favouring the big servers....the Sisters Williams have ABYSMAL tiebreak records this year...

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 9th, 2009, 10:59 PM
Great

There will no be a borefest like Federer - Roddick in the fifth set :yawn: :zzz:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:03 PM
:lol: how can you be a purist but want to get rid of the "let" :rolls:

sammy01
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:07 PM
Exactly. With two hardcourt slams, let this be what sets the US Open apart. All us 'mericans have short attention spans anyways.

What were we talking about?

elena's bangs? :confused:

i don't like the final set breaker, but each to their own. just could you imagine the venus vs davenport wimbledon final coming to such an abrupt end at 6-6, well it would have at the us open.

The Dawntreader
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:13 PM
There are equal arguments. One could argue that a final set TB is detrimentak to a player's effort to come back in a match. Say for example, a player comes back from 5-6 0-40 down and forces a tie-break, only to lose the MATCH by seven points ultimately seems a bit bizarre.

One could also argue however, that it helps scheduling (by god, the Open needs help with scheduling) and it's actually a thrilling, shoot-out that determines a match. It certainly invites some excitement.

I incline more to the second argument.

sammy01
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:37 PM
the final set tie-breaker also takes out the battle of the fittest tennis is known for. i for one thought federer won that final set because he was fitter than roddick, roddick's feet stopped moving at the end and he eventually bit the dust. had it ended in a final set breaker i would have seen it as a 50-50 shoot-out, where as the advantage set i favoured federer 80-20.

also i think a player should break serve at least once to win a match, an advantage set ensures this.

V's a star
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:41 PM
I actually like 3rd set tiebreaks. There jus so damn intense

jzrnsk
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:47 PM
:lol: how can you be a purist but want to get rid of the "let" :rolls:

it actually brings out the best of the players to see who has good reaction time. that shows who the best. with tiebreaks, the winner of the seven points is completely random. if you're going to win a fifth set, there's got to be a break of serve or it sucks.

Atrixo
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:58 PM
I like no tiebreaks in the final set for women. More women's tennis is ALWAYS a good thing in my book. :bounce:

But I think they should implement a final set tiebreak for the men. Seriously, I have little desire to watch five sets of men's tennis already, but to prolong that even further? I'd rather be shot in the head. The last set of Federer/Roddick had to be the most boring and pathetic display I've seen in my life. :rolleyes::tape:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:59 PM
so will your next thread be about no - ad scoring?

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:06 AM
I like no tiebreaks in the final set for women. More women's tennis is ALWAYS a good thing in my book. :bounce:

But I think they should implement a final set tiebreak for the men. Seriously, I have little desire to watch five sets of men's tennis already, but to prolong that even further? I'd rather be shot in the head. The last set of Federer/Roddick had to be the most boring and pathetic display I've seen in my life. :rolleyes::tape:

to each his own...that's what the sexists say makes mens tennis "better" :shrug: it was high quality with hardly any breaks of serve (both players serving excellently) but unless you had a vested interest in the match (cheering for or against either player strongly like i was), it was going to be a snooze fest of a last set with each player holding to love, and the only drama coming at 15-40 on fed's serve and the first time roddick face mp...:shrug:

i like the idea of a final set tb at times, but if you're meant to bring your best at the slams in order to win and that means being fit as well then you should play on until one of them breaks...the only problem is once they players get tired and start to fade, that high level of play drops, and heaven forbid if the match wasn't of good quality to begin

spartanfan
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:24 AM
Oh yeah ? And what are those ? Strawberry cream perhaps... Seriously it's a shame the the US Open would single itself out from the other 3. The rules are the rules.
Really if you think about it logically, you've just disproved your own argument. Those 3 Grand Slams are the EXCEPTION to all the other tournaments played during the seasoon. They even use the deciding set tiebreak at the Year End Championships-Men's and Women's. It's only at these three Grand Slams that they do not utilize a deciding set tie break. Whats the point of all that? Tradition? Bah-hum-bug.
What other event on tour does it this way? These three need to keep the tour consistent and get on board with using a third set tiebreak.

Sharapower
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:05 AM
I don't mind last set tie-breakers. As someone said, it evens-up the first server's advantage, and we saw in the Wimby men's final how important it can be.
I forcefully disagree with USO being the worst GS. I was looking at winners' lists for all GS's and I came to the conclusion that "USO and AO don't lie": while Wimbledon and RG are prone to produce shocking flukes and "one-slam-wonders", all winners of AO and USO in the open era (except Sabatini) proved to be consistent top players and multiple GS champions.

hellas719
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:14 AM
I just played a video game in the US Open and lost 7-6 in the third:mad:
Like an hour ago:lol:

drake3781
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:16 AM
so will your next thread be about no - ad scoring?


Yes, there is a list, and they are coming out one at a time. Very typical pattern for new members.

drake3781
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:18 AM
I do not like the tiebreak so would want to see it changed.

I guess it will not be - they want a little timed package of a match at USO.

AcesHigh
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:28 AM
I like it at USO. It's exciting, it's sudden-death winner takes all. And the Open has had problems with scheduling so we don't really need matches going on for 5 hours.

skanky~skanketta
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:52 AM
I like the third set TB! Keep it the way it is please.

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:50 AM
The final set tiebreak makes the US Open unique among the slams. So I like it. They should keep it.

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:22 PM
i agree, they should change this rule. epic matches have been lost because of this tiebreak enforcer.

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:25 PM
US Open needs more courts, its the slam with the fewest courts, thats probably why they have this 3rd set TB.

Bayo
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:26 PM
At the USO, it works. Just feels right.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:19 PM
US Open needs more courts, its the slam with the fewest courts, thats probably why they have this 3rd set TB.

don't forget the lack of a roof, their inability to see the need for court covers since they have fancy machines :o so instead of a rain delay that may only take 30 mins before the players get on court, you have to wait until they blow dry the courts :o

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:22 PM
don't forget the lack of a roof, their inability to see the need for court covers since they have fancy machines :o so instead of a rain delay that may only take 30 mins before the players get on court, you have to wait until they blow dry the courts :o


they should hire Paris Hilton for blowing

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:28 PM
US Open needs more courts, its the slam with the fewest courts, thats probably why they have this 3rd set TB.

That's NOT why.

darrinbaker00
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:17 PM
The final set tiebreak makes the US Open unique among the slams. So I like it. They should keep it.
That, and the prize money. If you've noticed, the USTA always waits until after Wimbledon to announce the total prize money for the Open. They want it to always be the richest of the four majors.

sammy01
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:22 PM
That, and the prize money. If you've noticed, the USTA always waits until after Wimbledon to announce the total prize money for the Open. They want it to always be the richest of the four majors.

i've not done the calculations, but it does seem that wimbledon and the us open are leaving the other 2 slams behind interms of prizemoney, because of there 'battle' to be the biggest paycheck in tennis.

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:50 PM
That, and the prize money. If you've noticed, the USTA always waits until after Wimbledon to announce the total prize money for the Open. They want it to always be the richest of the four majors.

easier to do when its the last slam

Pureracket
Jul 10th, 2009, 06:03 PM
When, American, James Van Allen invented the tiebreak, it was introduced @ the US Open first. I think it's a sense of "American" pride for the Open to use the tiebreak. By the way, Van Allen also founded the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

He died after striking his head in a fall at his home. That day, in a Wimbledon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Championships,_Wimbledon) semi-final, Stefan Edberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Edberg) lost to Michael Stich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Stich) 4-6, 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-2). Edberg didn't lose serve. Later, after hearing of Van Alen's death, Edberg said: "If he hadn't lived, Michael and I might still be out there playing".

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2009, 06:16 PM
It's exciting and while I don't think the other majors should have a final set breaker, I think the US Open should keep theirs. when u get deep in that third or fifth set at the open it's a different kind of pressure when you know the match will come to a conclusion very soon. It's almost like time ticking down in a basketball game. Watch any match that will be decided by the breaker and you'll see the atmosphere I mean, especially at night at the Open.

Jem
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:37 AM
Personally, I love the fact that the U.S. Open is the lone grand slam to end in a tie-break. It's very American, given that the tie-breaker was invented here. Also, I think some of the best, most dramatic matches I've ever seen are those that do end in a tie-break. You can be up and down, all in the space of one minute. Have to disagree with the thread starter's premise that tie-breakers don't reward the best player. Actually, it forces you to play your toughest mentally, because there's not always another game to win, but just another point to win.

WowWow
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:23 AM
TB sucks.