Originally Posted by gmatheis
I don't think anyone in their right mind would intentionally go to a tiebreak rather than winning a set outright just to set up the service order in the next set.
Also switching sides more often is less complicated than trying to remember when you serve both points from one side and when you serve one, switch, then serve the next one from the other side.
Lastly, if something has an added complication then by definition it would be more complicated.
"More complicated" isn't the same thing as "meaningfully complicated." And with that, I'm through with playing the semantics game here, it's pointless.
As for "anyone in their right mind," you've evidently never played anyone who openly threw games in Set 2 so they'd be better equipped for Set 3.
Obviously not everyone here sees Coman the same way I do, and that's fine.
(edit to note I've put spot on ignore, just a heads-up to him if he's expecting a response to his recent posts)