I stepped away from this thread for 2 days and all heal breaks loose.
Any who, regarding the fairness / complication-complicated issues that are rumbling about.
Any system that provides each player a chance to serve an equal number of points from each side in a tie break must be considered is fair. However, I think we will all agree that in a 10 point breaker you would not want a situation where you played 9 points and then switched.
Also, I believe that if you were to play a traditional tiebreaker and 1 side was really awful due to wind or sun that everyone would want to start the breaker on the good side. I think common sense would dictate that if you would want to go up 6-0 or 5-1 and then try and hold on. Even if after two rotations you were tied 6-6 you would be in position to move to the good side with many cracks at winning. This is lessened slightly by switching more often.
Finally, I truly believe that if tennis had always been played with the coman system, no one, I repeat no one would be advocating going to a more complicated system of switching every 6 points and having a player switch sides in the middle of his two service points.
"You should be playing linebacker, not singles."