Tennis Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,060 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I think in big matches they are.

Look at the Jennifer-Justine match.

A fabulous match, well played, both players putting in everything they've got. And most importantly it contains many changes of momentum. First one player was dominating, then the other. Sets went back and forth with runs of games one way, then the other.

Then suddenly, at 6-6 in the Third Set, the whole of the past match is thrown in the dustbin. The players effectively play one seven-point game to decide the whole thing. The past three sets are irrelevant.

Whoever gets themselves together for this ONE game wins the match. A little bit of bad luck, a momentary lapse in concentration, and the whole match is gone. The match becomes a virtual lottery. It is awful losing like that. That's why it should take a break of serve and a hold to win a match like this. The Grand Slams should keep with Wimbledon and make players go o nuntil someone WINS that final set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
I think we may have had a diferent outcome if the tiebreak didn't come into play- maybe it would have been 12-10 in the 3rd and justine was physically strugelling more than jenn...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,535 Posts
Actually, it's not "the Grand Slams"
It's just the USO

i personally see nothing wrong with it
that's what makes the USO different from the other slams
and it really shows who wants the match more, and who is the mentally stronger player, and who delivers when the stakes are high
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
moby said:
Actually, it's not "the Grand Slams"
It's just the USO

i personally see nothing wrong with it
that's what makes the USO different from the other slams
and it really shows who wants the match more, and who is the mentally stronger player, and who delivers when the stakes are high
Yeah but all the things you stated can be be delivered in an open set, only it may take abit longer...
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
You can't just say that "the whole of the past match is thrown in the dustbin". They played three sets, and at the end the score was 1-1 in sets, 6-6 in games. There has to be some point at which you say "enough is enough - these two players are tied, and we need to break that tie". If a tennis match goes on for three hours and the scores are still level, it needs to be ended, even if the ending is as unpredictable as tossing a coin.

Look at it this way: Justine and Jennifer played 34 games to reach that point. What if those 34 games had been distributed 0-6 6-0 11-11? Do you think they should keep on playing until the third set score is 27-25, or 36-38, or 102-104?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,635 Posts
I don't see it's a big deal except that a tiebreak is maybe more difficult for mentally not so strong players
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,065 Posts
I def dont like third set tiebreaks. The whole long match just comes down to that one game, like you said, and it only takes one mistake, or bad call or let cord and the match could be over. They should play it out like other grand slams do.
The game score is very unlikely to get past 15 games all at the maximum, so the 102-104 scenario will never happen. It has never happened at any other grand slam. To use something so unlikely as an argument for a tiebreak is just ridiculous.
To me the player who deserves to win a match is one who can break their opponents serve and hold their own, not one who can win ONE point on their opponents serve, then win ONE point on their own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,198 Posts
The only problem I see with a tiebreak is that it helps player who have a game that's constructed on a big serve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I also agree with the following posts. I think that all the Grand Slams should go the distance with them however long that may take. The 7-6 tiebreaks seems to be a bit harsh, as less fit, but mentally stronger can prevail (HENIN) where as as the contest goes on the physcially stronger would eventually win (CAPRIATI). Plus all the other slams do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,863 Posts
Well, for those saying it's unfair Justine has to play tonight after that grueling match...what would you all say if the match had no tie-break and had gone to 21-19 last night?

I think a tie-break is fair, actually. It was ridiculous that Roddick had to go to 21-19 in Australia and then come back and play a SF. That's too long to expect people to play.

I think it's also bad for the sport. General fans do not want to sit around watching a match for 5 hours. Other sports last 2-3 hours, and tennis matches should be no longer than that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,491 Posts
fuck what all the other GS do. dont you people understand that america thrives on being different? we like annoying people :p

i actually like the way the uso does it. it doesnt take forever, and it is a bit harsh, but thats what is so damn exciting about it. like sudden death overtime. yum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,433 Posts
I think the US Open should get in line with the other slam tournaments and require a two GAME lead in the deciding set for a victory.

Hell, before television came into the picture this was true for ALL sets played.

The game was changed just to accomadate television. However, television has made the sport a big money maker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,491 Posts
this shouldve been a poll
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,060 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
21-19 is hard but a very rare event, especially in Womens' matches where serve is not held so securely.

The compelling thing for me is that a tiebreak is so much like tossing a coin. Lose concentration for thirty seconds, and you've lost the match. If tie-breaks favour anyone, it is the more experienced (generally higher-ranked) player, who is less fazed by the tension, knows how to play tiebreaks, and realises that it is a specialist art.

As other posters have said, the three other slams manage very well without using final-set tiebreaks. I feel they provide an unsatisfactory conclusion to a match, and devalue the skills and effort of the players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,414 Posts
the tiebreak sux. I think this match woulda had a different result if players were left to play the way they do in the other slams. we all know Cappy has great stamina for these matches (FO2001 final 12-10 in the third). i think Henin woulda been on her drip long before she left the court if it were done this way. Jennifer totally wore her out and kicked Henin's arse into the ground, even tho it was Justine that won the match. i think she only won due to the tiebreak situation which wasnt a good reflection on the rest of the match :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
Depends if you want the stronger player who can last forever or the player who is best at getting their act together in a tiebreak to win? Non tiebreak final sets often end in someone just playing a bad game or getting an unlucky netcord or just wearing out so I can't see much difference. You get a chance and more time to break back but why is it better than being forced to get it right in a tiebreak - its not as if you can't get your act together and come back in a womens tiebreak. In fact its possible that the longer the match goes on the more chance there is that luck or endurance triumphs over ability. Finally, who do you want in the next round - the player who wins by outlasting the opponent or the one who proves more skillful at the crucial points?
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top