Tennis Discussions > Tennis Discussions

final set tie-breaker vs playing it out

(1/3) > >>

Tennis4you:
What do you guys prefer when it comes down to the last set in a match.  A tei-breaker or playing it out?

If I am playing i would prefer the tie-breaker, I have a good record in them.  But on TV I kinda like seeing it played out at the slams.

gary2414:
I think all matches should have tiebreakers in the final set.  They play out the final set in Davis and Fed Cup, the Olympics, as well as the Slams except the US Open.  When you play it out it can make matches too long and that can be a problem when you don't have lights such as the French Open and Wimbledon.  Also when you play it out it does not work for TV because you get matches running to long into other programs.  If you had tiebreakers in the Davis Cup ESPN would tend to carry more of the matches live.  The Fed Cup all went to the tennis channel and they are better prepared to have match that run long so for them it really doesn't matter.  Maybe in the French Open and Wimbledon where they don't have lights when it is about to get dark could order a tiebreak to start in the final set anytime after the score gets six all or later.  However  the tiebreak could start later if that is when it got too dark for play  so you could have tiebreak that starts after 20 all.  As far as ordereing a tiebreak to start when rain starts to all after six fall that could also be done but would probably only be done in the French Open when play is stillpossible for awhile when rain starts to fall if it is not too hard.  At Wimbledon on grass when the rain starts you seem to have to stop right away or the grass may become so wet that you cannot play even when the rain stops if the tarps are not put on soon enough.  That would mean that a tiebreak would have to be ordered when the officials could see rain approaching.

rhubarb:
We should never change the tennis scoring just to suit TV (especially if it's for a stupid reason such as pulling in a potential audience that has a short attention span).   Unfortunately some tournaments have probably done this already - you can probably guess which ones.

I'm quite glad that they don't have final set tie-breaks in singles at the AO, RG and Wimbledon.  Can you imagine the Hewitt/Nalbandian and Federer/Safin matches being decided by a tie-break?  Maybe, but not quite the same.

BTW I was furious when I realised in 2003 that they had not only reduced men's doubles at the USO to the best of three sets, but decided the third set with a tie-break only!  What the heck is going on there?

gary2414:
First of all the men's doubles were reduced to best of three sets at the US open.  However it is only the mixed doubles that are decieded by a tiebreak only in third set at the AO and US Open.  That is a superset tiebreak that goes to ten with a margin of two.  The only Slam with tiebreaks is the US Open and I suspect that CBS wanted it that way and pushed for the change.  The Masters series have five set finals when played in Europe unless rain delays the final too much.  The US and Canada Masters series can be either way and seem to go back and forth between years on best of three or best of five set finals.  It seems to be what the TV network that has the final want.  ESPN should have the finals of all the US Masters series so they can be best of five unless rain delays the finals too much.  They should allocate three hours for the final and then schedule poker or Worlds Strongest Man reruns for the next two hours in case the tennis runs long and ESPN could stay long.  No live sports should be should occur.

Tennis Freak:
I like the tie-breakers because every point can mean so much.  Just look at the Year End Championships between Safin and Federer.  20-18, wow!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version