Helping new players learn the Coman tiebreak procedure

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by tenniscasey

Why? It can be a strategic play to go for / avoid a tiebreaker if the wind would be a factor. I don't see why this opportunity creates anything "not fair."

Right. Players should make sure they don't wind up in a tiebreak and should instead bagel their opponent. That's just good strategy!

[tenniscasey]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

Right. Players should make sure they don't wind up in a tiebreak and should instead bagel their opponent. That's just good strategy!

Well that's what I always do

Have you never played anyone who intentionally dumped games to set themselves up for the next set? In my experience fatigue is the usual reason for dumping, but that's not the only one.

[spot]

Originally Posted by tenniscasey

You shouldn't be calling other people dumb. "It adds a pointless complication" (which I said) is not the same thing as "it is complicated" (which nobody here has said; Coman isn't complicated in isolation, it becomes a complication when you add it to the existing rule system that everyone naturally uses).

The guy who insists on using Coman is one of my singles opponents. At least you and I can agree that Coman is useless in singles.

I'm sorry- if you think that changing after 4 points rather thatn 6 points is a complication then I think that a box of rocks is smarter than you.

You can complain about too many changeovers. You can complain that there is no good reason to do the coman tiebreak for singles. But if you complain that the coman tiebreak is an added complication then I don't understand how you can tie your shoes by yourself and velcro is likely the greatest thing that has ever happened to you.

[tenniscasey]

Originally Posted by spot

I'm sorry- if you think that changing after 4 points rather thatn 6 points is a complication then I think that a box of rocks is smarter than you.

You can complain about too many changeovers. You can complain that there is no good reason to do the coman tiebreak for singles. But if you complain that the coman tiebreak is an added complication then I don't understand how you can tie your shoes by yourself and velcro is likely the greatest thing that has ever happened to you.

You didn't understand the difference between "complication" and "complicated," and here you are making personal attacks on my intelligence. You amuse me.

[beernutz]

Originally Posted by tenniscasey

You didn't understand the difference between "complication" and "complicated," and here you are making personal attacks on my intelligence. You amuse me.

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the word complication.

Definition of COMPLICATION from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complication

1. a : complexity, intricacy; especially : a situation or a detail of character complicating the main thread of a plot
b : a making difficult, involved, or intricate
c : a complex or intricate feature or element
d : a difficult factor or issue often appearing unexpectedly and changing existing plans, methods, or attitudes

2: a secondary disease or condition developing in the course of a primary disease or condition

So which of those usages would not be describing something that was complicated?

[tenniscasey]

Originally Posted by beernutz

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the word complication.

Definition of COMPLICATION from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complication

1. a : complexity, intricacy; especially : a situation or a detail of character complicating the main thread of a plot
b : a making difficult, involved, or intricate
c : a complex or intricate feature or element
d : a difficult factor or issue often appearing unexpectedly and changing existing plans, methods, or attitudes

2: a secondary disease or condition developing in the course of a primary disease or condition

So which of those usages would not be describing something that was complicated?

Post the definitions of both terms, post a cogent analysis of how they are parallel, then get back to me. I'll be waiting eagerly for your report.

[gmatheis]

Originally Posted by tenniscasey

Well that's what I always do

Have you never played anyone who intentionally dumped games to set themselves up for the next set? In my experience fatigue is the usual reason for dumping, but that's not the only one.

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.

[g4driver]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

The one thing I like about Coman in singles is that you need to switch more frequently. The side you start on seems less likely to decide the outcome if one side is way worse than the other.

agreed.

It sucks to have the first six points with a bright afternoon winter sun in your face under the regular TB.

With Coman, it is a lot nicer than serving and receiving 6 points in a row a and having to dig from behind, down 4-2 , 5-1 or worse 6-0.

[spot]

What's wrong with the normal tiebreak again?

Doubles is easiest to use an example. Lets say that you have a lefty playing with a righty and you set it up so that both people are serving out of the sun. You can play the entire match this way except for in the tiebreak and then you have to serve from a side you haven't served from all match? For doubles the coman tiebreak makes far more sense.

[beernutz]

Originally Posted by tenniscasey

Post the definitions of both terms, post a cogent analysis of how they are parallel, then get back to me. I'll be waiting eagerly for your report.

Sorry, there's an extent to which I'll go to help someone such as yourself who is so willing to admit their deficiencies but that is past it.

[spot]

Originally Posted by beernutz

Sorry, there's an extent to which I'll go to help someone such as yourself who is so willing to admit their deficiencies but that is past it.

The funny part is that I wasn't even talking about him when I made my original post. I just asked how dumb someone would have to be to think that it is complicated. I suppose that I should be thankful that he volunteered to show us.

[tenniscasey]

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)

[tenniscasey]

Originally Posted by beernutz

Sorry, there's an extent to which I'll go to help someone such as yourself who is so willing to admit their deficiencies but that is past it.

Pity. I'm sure I could learn a lot from you.

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Originally Posted by spot

Doubles is easiest to use an example. Lets say that you have a lefty playing with a righty and you set it up so that both people are serving out of the sun. You can play the entire match this way except for in the tiebreak and then you have to serve from a side you haven't served from all match? For doubles the coman tiebreak makes far more sense.

So you can't deal with the elements? What happens if the wind suddenly picks up, do you stop playing altogether then?

[dizzlmcwizzl]

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.

[Orange]

Originally Posted by tenniscasey

http://macontennis.com/comantiebreak.pdf

I didn't mean to hijack this thread with my editorial comments on the procedure. My apologies to the OP. The link above provides a decent explanation, with diagrams, of how Coman works.

Thanks, TennisCasey. That isn't the explanation I was seeking, but it is a good start!

There is no need to apologize; I think it is amusing. Here's what I see so far:

OP: Help! The pilots are unconscious, the airplane is leaking fuel, and we're off course, flying over Siberia. How do I land an airplane on the snow?
A1: Let scorpions loose in the passenger cabin, and the passengers won't notice that you are trying to do such a ridiculous thing.
A2: I like to land airplanes on snow. It is better than on a runway; snow is fluffier!
A3: Snow is fluffier in some cases but not others. It is worse in cases where there are sharp rocks just under the snow.
A4: I never land airplanes on snow. I always make sure that we never get to that point, because my flights always have conscious pilots, don't leak fuel and stay on course.
A5: How are you defining snow?
A6: If all flights landed on snow, it wouldn't be a big deal.

[Cindysphinx]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

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.

Dude. Thanks for returning and talking sense.

Sheez.

[tenniscasey]

Originally Posted by Orange

Thanks, TennisCasey. That isn't the explanation I was seeking, but it is a good start!

There is no need to apologize; I think it is amusing. Here's what I see so far:

OP: Help! The pilots are unconscious, the airplane is leaking fuel, and we're off course, flying over Siberia. How do I land an airplane on the snow?
A1: Let scorpions loose in the passenger cabin, and the passengers won't notice that you are trying to do such a ridiculous thing.
A2: I like to land airplanes on snow. It is better than on a runway; snow is fluffier!
A3: Snow is fluffier in some cases but not others. It is worse in cases where there are sharp rocks just under the snow.
A4: I never land airplanes on snow. I always make sure that we never get to that point, because my flights always have conscious pilots, don't leak fuel and stay on course.
A5: How are you defining snow?
A6: If all flights landed on snow, it wouldn't be a big deal.

Haha... yep, that about sums it up!

[tbuggle]

takes some getting used to, but seems fair and is no big deal.

plus, i just don't care all that much.

[Fuji]

To be totally honest, I've never even heard of this before. It seems somewhat interesting though.

-Fuji