Australian Open set to introduce a super tiebreak in the final set

#1
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...in-introducing-final-set-tie-breaks-ljghwkth0

"The Australian Open has obtained permission to follow Wimbledon in shortening the potential length of matches by introducing a tie-break in the deciding set across all events.

However, in a move that perfectly sums up the lack of uniformity across the four grand slam tournaments, Australian chiefs have decided their preference is to play a “super tie-break” at 6-6, in which the player must win ten points by a margin of two.

With approval recently granted by the grand slam board, players are now being consulted to determine whether this should be introduced as soon as the 2019 tournament, which begins on January 14. It is possible that the full implementation could be delayed for another year, with only a trial taking place next month…"

We are going to have a different rule for each of the four Grand Slams.

Australian Open - Super tiebreak at 6-6
Roland Garros - No tiebreak
Wimbledon - Classic tiebreak at 12-12
US Open - Classic tiebreak at 6-6

o_O
 
#16
Words can barely fathom at how many levels this decision is not just wrong, but atrocious.

Decisions like these do nothing but showcase a lack of understanding of what makes ones own event great, utter disrespect to the history of the game, and a slap in the face of fans who have enjoyed the sport as it was for decades

I weep for tennis

I weep for humanity

And I would rather see Alexander Zverev win a Grand Slam than see Isner have the faintest joy in his life.
 
#17
Can someone explain what this means, I actually don't know.
The 5th set will have a tiebreak if the two players win six games each. But unlike the classic tiebreak where you need to win 7 points (with at least a 2 point difference), in a super tiebreak you need to win 10 points.
 
#20
The 5th set will have a tiebreak if the two players win six games each. But unlike the classic tiebreak where you need to win 7 points (with at least a 2 point difference), in a super tiebreak you need to win 10 points.
Sorry but why is this considered bad? So at the FO the 5th set winner has to win by two games like 9-7, no tie breaks?
 
#23
Sorry but why is this considered bad? So at the FO the 5th set winner has to win by two games like 9-7, no tie breaks?
Yes, at the French Open the player will have to break the opponent's serve in the 5th set in order to win.

Personally I am fine with either kind of 5th set as long as it's good quality. Drama is guaranteed whether it's a tiebreak or a longer marathon.
 
#24
Yes, at the French Open the player will have to break the opponent's serve in the 5th set in order to win.

Personally I am fine with either kind of 5th set as long as it's good quality. Drama is guaranteed whether it's a tiebreak or a longer marathon.
I'm reviewing the Isner/Anderson match at Wimbledon this year and when they reached 12-12 in fifth set, they didn't do a 7 point tie break like you said.
 
#28
That's because the new rule was introduced after this year's Wimbledon. It will be applied from 2019 onwards.
Thanks, sometimes hard to keep up with these changes. I looked at all the AO finals back 10 years and I don't think any fifth set went the distance so I guess its whatever with the change.
 
#30
Super tiebreaker makes little sense. A regular game is 4 points. 10 points is the equivalent of 2.5 games. Maybe in those 2.5 games there would have been a traditional break of serve.

Super TB only makes sense as replacement for 3rd set.
So someone wins when they get to 10 regardless if its 9-10, the 10 still wins? I prefer myself to have a winner win by two, whatever it is either a point or sets.
 
Top