Topic: Best of Five 5th Set Tie-breaker is ready

[Babblelot]

+4 hour matches at the AO are a product of slow courts and today's defensive players. But more importantly, they are becoming commonplace and increasingly tedious. The match between Djokovic and Wawrinka at 2013 AO ended with the only compelling game in 45 minutes. What's worse, had it been Djokovic-Nadal, they would have played another hour because neither player is willing to pull the trigger first. A 5th set TB is needed. There's a threshold at about 4 hours after which there are diminishing returns for the tennis (passive) and for the viewer.

Bring it on. I don't care when, let's just have it. 4 hours in, it's time to get off the court. The tennis is only getting uglier and the fans increasingly tired.

[Freak3yman84]

I couldn't disagree more

Personally, I LOVE long matches. It's the epitome of a great match. And your slow surface theory is flawed because what about Roland Garros? It's slower than the AO, and they play out the 5th set. I've always hated the US Open's 5th set tiebreak rule, because if players fight for 4 sets, why decide it with 7 points? I'm sure CD would agree that long sets take gladiator-like strength and determination. It shows a new type of strength to the support.

Why take a great Grand Slam aspect away? It interests me, as well as many other fans.

[Babblelot]

I couldn't disagree more

Personally, I LOVE long matches. It's the epitome of a great match. And your slow surface theory is flawed because what about Roland Garros? It's slower than the AO, and they play out the 5th set. I've always hated the US Open's 5th set tiebreak rule, because if players fight for 4 sets, why decide it with 7 points? I'm sure CD would agree that long sets take gladiator-like strength and determination. It shows a new type of strength to the support.

Why take a great Grand Slam aspect away? It interests me, as well as many other fans.

It's not flawed at all. RG is clay if you hadn't noticed. Clay will break you down physically sooner than HC if you weren't aware.

Now, speaking of ^^^flawed arguments (yours).

OK, one and one so far.


This is a poll. Now vote!

[Babblelot]

Reading around, it turns out that your team is essentially myopic. For you guys, 5 > 4  and the tennis be damned! 5 > 4 is your team's entire argument.

The tennis didn't improve over the last hour, it got a lot worse. A TB would have certainly brought about a sensational MP sooner rather than later.

Who cares what a player does when he's up/down 40-0/0-40 game after game? What does he do when he's facing MP point after point? That's the more interesting question.

[Freak3yman84]

I couldn't disagree more

Personally, I LOVE long matches. It's the epitome of a great match. And your slow surface theory is flawed because what about Roland Garros? It's slower than the AO, and they play out the 5th set. I've always hated the US Open's 5th set tiebreak rule, because if players fight for 4 sets, why decide it with 7 points? I'm sure CD would agree that long sets take gladiator-like strength and determination. It shows a new type of strength to the support.

Why take a great Grand Slam aspect away? It interests me, as well as many other fans.

It's not flawed at all. RG is clay if you hadn't noticed. Clay will break you down physically sooner than HC if you weren't aware.

Now, speaking of ^^^flawed arguments (yours).

OK, one and one so far.


This is a poll. Now vote!

I don't understand at all. What does tiring out have to do with it?

[Babblelot]

I couldn't disagree more

Personally, I LOVE long matches. It's the epitome of a great match. And your slow surface theory is flawed because what about Roland Garros? It's slower than the AO, and they play out the 5th set. I've always hated the US Open's 5th set tiebreak rule, because if players fight for 4 sets, why decide it with 7 points? I'm sure CD would agree that long sets take gladiator-like strength and determination. It shows a new type of strength to the support.

Why take a great Grand Slam aspect away? It interests me, as well as many other fans.

It's not flawed at all. RG is clay if you hadn't noticed. Clay will break you down physically sooner than HC if you weren't aware.

Now, speaking of ^^^flawed arguments (yours).

OK, one and one so far.


This is a poll. Now vote!

I don't understand at all. What does tiring out have to do with it?

lol Whose posts are you reading? The only time I mention tiring is with respect to fans! 

I've presented my case clearly and would be happy to repost what I've said above for you:

+4 hour matches at the AO are a product of slow courts and today's defensive players. But more importantly, they are becoming commonplace and increasingly tedious. The match between Djokovic and Wawrinka at 2013 AO ended with the only compelling game in 45 minutes. What's worse, had it been Djokovic-Nadal, they would have played another hour because neither player is willing to pull the trigger first. A 5th set TB is needed. There's a threshold at about 4 hours after which there are diminishing returns for the tennis (passive) and for the viewer.

Bring it on. I don't care when, let's just have it. 4 hours in, it's time to get off the court. The tennis is only getting uglier and the fans increasingly tired.

Reading around, it turns out that your team is essentially myopic. For you guys, 5 > 4  and the tennis be damned! 5 > 4 is your team's entire argument.

The tennis didn't improve over the last hour, it got a lot worse. A TB would have certainly brought about a sensational MP sooner rather than later.

Who cares what a player does when he's up/down 40-0/0-40 game after game? What does he do when he's facing MP point after point? That's the more interesting question.

[Freak3yman84]

Looks like I'm going to have to go through all of your posts, and ask.

In order of boldness:

It's not flawed at all. RG is clay if you hadn't noticed. Clay will break you down physically sooner than HC if you weren't aware.

Now, speaking of ^^^flawed arguments (yours).

OK, one and one so far.


This is a poll. Now vote!

How is this relevant? And clay doesn't break you down physically sooner than HC....

You have yet to point out a flaw in my argument, what are you talking about?

Reading around, it turns out that your team is essentially myopic. For you guys, 5 > 4  and the tennis be damned! 5 > 4 is your team's entire argument.

The tennis didn't improve over the last hour, it got a lot worse. A TB would have certainly brought about a sensational MP sooner rather than later.

Who cares what a player does when he's up/down 40-0/0-40 game after game? What does he do when he's facing MP point after point? That's the more interesting question.

I don't comprehend this whatsoever.....

You don't know this.... It could've easily been 7-1, 7-2, 7-3 or any other boring score as opposed to a thrilling extra 10 games!

Eventually they have to face MPs with playing out the games, so again, flawed logic.

[Babblelot]

1. OK, so you don't think clay is more physically demanding. Consider yourself on an island and we'll just disagree on that.

2. You said 4 sets then 7 points. I'm not asking for a 4th set TB. I don't care if they start the TB at 6-6, 8-8, 10-10, or 12-12.

3.  Moreover, if a player loses 7 points in a row, he's down a game and 0-40 even had they played it out. Anticlimactic, or to use your word, boring way to end a great match. In any event,  though a 7 point TB is possible, you're argument suffers from hyperbole.

4. It interests you and others. What do you want me to say about this? That's not even argumentative and mute since I can state the negative and be equally (in)effective, i.e., I and others find it incredibly tedious. Capisce?

What we do know is that last night the servers held easily for a very boring 30-45 stretch of games leading up to a single, very exciting MP. I would rather see how they play MPs sooner than later.

I hope we're done with the bold stuff because it's not even relevant or at all interesting.

[Freak3yman84]

1. OK, so you don't think clay is more physically demanding. Consider yourself on an island and we'll just disagree on that.

2. You said 4 sets then 7 points. I'm not asking for a 4th set TB. I don't care if they start the TB at 6-6, 8-8, 10-10, or 12-12.

3.  Moreover, if a player loses 7 points in a row, he's down a game and 0-40 even had they played it out. Anticlimactic, or to use your word, boring way to end a great match. In any event,  though a 7 point TB is possible, you're argument suffers from hyperbole.

4. It interests you and others. What do you want me to say about this? That's not even argumentative and mute since I can state the negative and be equally (in)effective, i.e., I and others find it incredibly tedious. Capisce?

What we do know is that last night the servers held easily for a very boring 30-45 stretch of games leading up to a single, very exciting MP. I would rather see how they play MPs sooner than later.

I hope that helps, yo!

1. Complete misunderstanding, I thought you said HC is more physically demanding. But now that you've suddenly changed your mind, we're in agreeance.

2. Again, another misunderstanding. I have no clue where you thought I said that?

3. Flawed theory again, that would be MP, whereas in a tiebreak that would be GSM. Anything can happen at 0-40, hell, even today I was down 4-5, 0-40 against my brother and ended up winning 

4. I'm just wondering how in the hell a 7 point tiebreak would be more interesting? The only 5th set tiebreak epic that I can recall is Verdasco-Ferrer, and even that hasn't left any sort of tremendous impact on anyone. With played out 5th sets, however, I can recall so many great ones i.e Isner-Mahut, Federer-Tipsarevic, Federer-Roddick, and the list goes on. The same goes for many. And no, I don't expect you to say anything to this because it's the truth, and it's incontrovertible.

[Babblelot]

It has to be a hair less boring than playing it out for 8 points, agreed?    That's the problem with hyperbolic arguments.

[Freak3yman84]

It has to be a hair less boring than playing it out for 8 points, agreed?    That's the problem with hyperbolic arguments.

OK, but it wouldn't be a hyperbolic argument if a tiebreak ended with a boring score of 7-4 or 7-3 rather than losing a game and being at deuce or losing a game and being at AD. Just another situation that would make a tiebreak boring

[Rafa816]

Yes, extended fifth sets take gladiator-like strength. The point is, they aren't gladiators. They're tennis players. What's the point of going on for a freakishly long stretch of 40-0 or 40-15 holds where it just becomes who can serve more aces than double faults? And then, unless it's a final or the winner is Djokovic or Nadal, the person is just going to go on to the next match and get murdered. The tennis suffers and the players suffer. I say a fifth set tiebreaker is better. Plus, your argument about more epic extended fifth sets than epic fifth-set tiebreakers is void. One slam has fifth-set tiebreakers. The other three and the Davis Cup have extended fifth sets. So there's a lot more chances to have an epic extended fifth set. And don't even bring up Isner-Mahut. That fifth set sucked. There were hardly any points. It was almost exclusively aces, service winners, double faults, and return winners.

[monstertruck]

Rollin' Old School.
Play it out.
Never seemed to be much of an issue until the equipment and the court speed changed.

Let the players, fans, and big $$$ associated with those changes pay the consequence for their actions.  Long, boring matches between players barely able to move into the forecourt.