Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Adult League & Tournament Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   A 10-pt tiebreak should never decide a match (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=399359)

polski 10-03-2011 03:57 AM

A 10-pt tiebreak should never decide a match
 
I have been the benefactor of the 10-point tiebreaker in both of my last two league matches. In both matches, I managed to get bageled in the 2nd set after close 1st sets & then find a way to win the 10-point tiebreakers both times.

I am fine with tiebreakers deciding a set, but in league matches we really need to play out the 3rd set. There is a huge difference in what it takes to win a tiebreak vs. what it takes to win 6 games. I shouldn't have won either of these matches this weekend, but since the USTA wants us playing tiebreakers I was able to.

Caesar 10-03-2011 04:11 AM

No thanks.

A third set adds anything up to an hour onto the end of the match. It's an inconvenience for those of us with real lives, who have other things to do with our weekends.

A MTB keeps matchtimes down, and allows the finishing time to be more easily predicted. If you made everyone play best of three sets you'd have a lot of people giving up league play.

Clintspin 10-03-2011 04:24 AM

Yes the 10 point tie-break is a lousy way to decide a otherwise good match. I have a friend (was a 5.0 player now a 4.5 after shoulder and cancer issues) who usually takes a loss in the first set but is in the process of wearing out his opponent. He can go all day and will win the second set. Then, before the change to the 10 point tie-break, he would almost always win the third set. Now his opponents just have to pull themselves together for a quick tie-break. It's like running a 5K and seeing the time-clock.

gmatheis 10-03-2011 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caesar (Post 6042100)
No thanks.

A third set adds anything up to an hour onto the end of the match. It's an inconvenience for those of us with real lives, who have other things to do with our weekends.

A MTB keeps matchtimes down, and allows the finishing time to be more easily predicted. If you made everyone play best of three sets you'd have a lot of people giving up league play.

I have to disagree here , I join USTA leagues because I want to play tennis, not because I want to do "other things" with my weekend.

Playing 3 full sets shouldn't take much more than 2.5 hours anyway, and you can get back to your "real life"

goran_ace 10-03-2011 05:41 AM

I agree with what Caesar said but would also add that it would be inconvenient from a scheduling/court reservation standpoint as well.

bcart1991 10-03-2011 05:41 AM

Best of three sets should be just that, best of three sets. I don't like the match tiebreak either.

If I'm joining a league, I'm setting aside that time to potentially play three sets that day. If I have other things that are more pressing, I don't play that day. It's quite simple.

No me gusta.

rjw 10-03-2011 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caesar (Post 6042100)
No thanks.

A third set adds anything up to an hour onto the end of the match. It's an inconvenience for those of us with real lives, who have other things to do with our weekends.

A MTB keeps matchtimes down, and allows the finishing time to be more easily predicted. If you made everyone play best of three sets you'd have a lot of people giving up league play.

Maybe spend more time playing than surfing here?

spot 10-03-2011 05:55 AM

I think it just comes down to court availability. If its important for the success of a league that matches get done in 2 hours then sure- play the tiebreak. In areas where courts are plentiful and there isn't a scheduling problem then play the third set.

Cindysphinx 10-03-2011 06:02 AM

Here, we play indoor matches. Two hours costs $17.

If you eliminate the match tiebreak, you'd need to reserve a third hour. That would mean a USTA match would cost $25, and the third hour would often be wasted.

You'd also drastically reduce court availability. Now, matches run from 7-9 and from 9-11. Without the match tiebreak, you couldn't get two matches done each evening.

ChipNCharge 10-03-2011 07:03 AM

I've played many three set matches in USTA over the years, and not one of them was longer than two hours.

goober 10-03-2011 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChipNCharge (Post 6042260)
I've played many three set matches in USTA over the years, and not one of them was longer than two hours.

I am not sure what this proves. I have played 2 set matches that were over 2 hours. We play third set 10 point tiebreak and every single week at least 1 line sometimes 2 lines goes over 2hours.

spot 10-03-2011 08:00 AM

Quote:

I've played many three set matches in USTA over the years, and not one of them was longer than two hours.
Seriously? I think that the number of 2 set matches that go over 2 hours is far greater than the number of 3 set matches that finish in under 2 hours.

kylebarendrick 10-03-2011 08:54 AM

Since pro doubles matches now use 10 point tiebreaks everywhere but the majors, I don't see how much success adult league players will have in arguing that we need to play full third sets.

NoQuarter 10-03-2011 09:23 AM

I think that it has been a part of league tennis long enough that it doesn't bother me anymore. Never really liked it....but have adapted to it now.

J_R_B 10-03-2011 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober (Post 6042274)
I am not sure what this proves. I have played 2 set matches that were over 2 hours. We play third set 10 point tiebreak and every single week at least 1 line sometimes 2 lines goes over 2hours.

Yeah, me too. I played one match 3 or 4 years ago where we split 7-6 5-7 that went 2:45 to the end of the 2nd. We started the 3rd and were on serve at 1-2 when we were kicked off by a tournament director for being an hour over our court time. We would have argued to complete the match (since NJ USTA is 3 sets), but the other team had won 4-0 an hour and a hlaf ago, so we just played the MTB and let him have the court for the tournament. The match was still over 3 hours with the MTB and probably headed close to 4 had we played out the 3rd.

andfor 10-03-2011 09:37 AM

We have a better chance of changing the tax code in this country before the USTA stops using the MTB in league play.

sphinx780 10-03-2011 09:46 AM

I'd love to see the 3rd set be played out but here we have to play indoors so often it would force the USTA to have to decide who could play league for a season and who couldn't due to court availability.

The main club that leagues are played in here (UofM) had to reduce court time to 1hr 45 min per USTA match to try to fit 3 matches on each night. 6-7:45, 7:45-9:30, 9:30-11:15.

Without the TB, there's no way this is remotely functional and we've already seen at the 4.5 level that if your team doesn't have a request in soon enough to the home court, you better hope another club has something open. Leaving many players with a 45+ min drive just to get to their home court to play.

I save the third setters for hitting with friends at this point or when we can all agree to play one during the outdoor season. Sometimes all it takes is asking.

ian2 10-03-2011 10:01 AM

To the OP: it's noble of you to say you shouldn't have won those matches, but in reality the outcome of the third set (if you were to play it) would be as unpredictable as a 10-point tie-breaker.

Personally, I'd prefer to play full three sets every time, but practical considerations (courts availability, cost, scheduling) make the 10-point tie-break a viable and fair compromise.

I'm lucky to play USTA leagues in an area where court time is essentially free and scheduling conflicts are rare. Even though 10-point tie-break is now mandated by USTA for most of the leagues, we (the players) often decide before the match starts that we'll play full third set. A few times, we agreed beforehand to play the tiebreaker but in the end went ahead and played the full third set because time allowed, and the match was too much fun to cut short. Again, I realize not everyone is so lucky to have a choice.

Maui19 10-03-2011 10:07 AM

I understand the reasons mentioned above supporting a MTB. Also, playing a third set in the summer heat also just about killed some seniors in my area, which is one of the reasons they gave us for the switch.

However, I just hate the rule. I think the 3rd set is the most fun to play, and brings fitness into the equation as well. I wish we played them out.

rjw 10-03-2011 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian2 (Post 6042562)
To the OP: it's noble of you to say you shouldn't have won those matches, but in reality the outcome of the third set (if you were to play it) would be as unpredictable as a 10-point tie-breaker.

I totally agree with that.....momentum shifts can change everything whether it's a tie breaker or a set


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse