[Doc]

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.

 

[Doc]

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.