Thread Tools

tennnisfannn · Jul 11th, 2009, 05:20 AM

I wondered this while watching the federer/roddick match. It is clear that whoever serves first has an advantage in any third set especially if you have to break for the match. Considering how roddick/federer wnet all the way to 16/14 that was 30 games in which federer was advantaged. What if there was a change such that if playeres got to 6 all then the other player starts serving first kinda like they do in tie breaks and then there would change back at 12 all and after every 12 games should the match last that long. Is this far fetched or a good idea?

Sam L · Jul 11th, 2009, 05:27 AM

No that won't work at all!

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying...

In this example, Federer serves for 6-5, then Roddick serves for 6-6. And then the order is reversed so Roddick serves again?

Meaning, Roddick gets to serve in the 12th and 13th games for that set? Having to serve for two consecutive games may be an advantage or disadvantage and wouldn't bring balance.

A lot of matches would be decided around that mark and scores would end with 8-6.

You'd be better off replacing with a tiebreak. I think.

Marcus1979 · Jul 11th, 2009, 05:40 AM

I hate final set tiebreaks its like a raffle on who wins it basically.

Edinboro · Jul 11th, 2009, 06:43 AM

Perhaps we should just raise the net? It would make people focus more on their overall game and less on their serves. Its all about serves on the mens side and its starting to become that way on the womens side. I say lets raise the net!

Polikarpov · Jul 11th, 2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1979

I hate final set tiebreaks its like a raffle on who wins it basically.

I agree. It would be really painful to see someone lose in a fifth set tiebreak, especially if both players reached championship points. Nothing is unfair about serving first in the fifth set. Roddick served out the fourth set so naturally Federer will serve first in the fifth. And I don't think Roddick would want to tank his service game at 5-3, then try to break Federer for the set so he could start first for the fifth.

Tennis Ball · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:31 PM

Funny, I was thinking the exact same! Federer serving for 6-5. Roddick serving for 7-6. Federer serving for 7-7; Roddick for 8-7, and so on, till 12-11, and hand the serve advantage over again. I agree it's quit unfair one player gets the serve advantage for such a long time, and was also wondering if there are stats that tell the percentage of how many times the player that started the final set won the match?
Also think about the big psychological disadvantage of having to serve all these times to letteraly stay into the match, and the "must-break, otherwise serving under stress again", compared to Federer serving relatively relaxed plus trying to break completely relaxed: "if it doesn't succeed this time, I have another chance next time".

Speculating, another rule could be a difference of 3 instead of 2 games, that way the just broken player gets a chance to break back and the match is not immediately decided and ended by this one break. If the player who just broke wants to win, he should serve it out one final time, particularly when the match is so close.

adner · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennis Ball

Speculating, another rule could be a difference of 3 instead of 2 games, that way the just broken player gets a chance to break back and the match is not immediately decided and ended by this one break. If the player who just broke wants to win, he should serve it out one final time, particularly when the match is so close.

One of players would have to break twice to win!

Sam L · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:39 PM

No. No. No. Sorry I'm a purist.

It's already bad enough that they have tiebreaks in ANY set.

Just leave the damn final set as it is. Having Player A serve, Player B serve, Player B serve again, Player A serve in that order is just awful and destroys the foundations of tennis. Or winning by 3 games. No, just no.

Marcus1979 · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:49 PM

what slams don't do final set tiebreaks?

Australian Open and Wimbledon or is it Roland Garros and Wimbledon?

darrinbaker00 · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1979

what slams don't do final set tiebreaks?

Australian Open and Wimbledon or is it Roland Garros and Wimbledon?

The US Open is the only major that has the final-set tiebreak.

Marcus1979 · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:54 PM

ok I thought there was another ok thanks.

Since thats the slam of your country Darrin whats your opinion of it?

bwahahahahaha · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:55 PM

Oh puhlease! You can't change the rules every time your favorite player loses!

tennnisfannn · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam L

No. No. No. Sorry I'm a purist.

It's already bad enough that they have tiebreaks in ANY set.

Just leave the damn final set as it is. Having Player A serve, Player B serve, Player B serve again, Player A serve in that order is just awful and destroys the foundations of tennis. Or winning by 3 games. No, just no.

In my question i was referring to swapping over after 6 0r 9 games not after every service. Surely for a game that goes ridiculously as long as the roddick /federer one. after 6/6. roddick could have served first till they got to to 9/9 or 12 all. Sounds reasonable to me. there is no double break just to win

fnuf7 · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:55 PM

No, don't care if it's an advantage to serve first, that's the way it is & everyone is aware of it. The player coming from behind & trying to force a 3rd/5th set should try their hardest to break to win the 2nd/4th set & so gain the advantage of serving first in that deciding set.

Kworb · Jul 11th, 2009, 02:58 PM

Is it really an advantage? Do we have statistics to see if guys who serve first in the 5th set win it more often?