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

what difference will those 3 points make exactly? What’s the point other than for AO to differentiate itself from the USO?
it'll rather come down to 5-6 points on average. have you ever watched such a tiebreak? it's clearly more extensive than the regular one.

Why are super tiebreaks more nonsensical than regular tiebreaks?
i suspect that the main reason why the race-to-7 tiebreak became the regular one is that the super tiebreak is so long that playing sets out is faster on average.
 
it'll rather come down to 5-6 points on average. have you ever watched such a tiebreak? it's clearly more extensive than the regular one.


i suspect that the main reason why the race-to-7 tiebreak became the regular one is that the super tiebreak is so long that playing sets out is faster on average.
But 6-5 in a super TB is basically the same as 3-2 in a regular one. There are lots of 3-2 scores in a regular tie-break.
 
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
Kinda like the different formats in all tourneys. Should be fun. Give us all something to argue about. I can make a case for all the formats.
 
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
Why all this mess? The solution is easier: just ban Isner, or wait a couple of years until he retires.
Well, actually, better just ban him. Servebots have very long careers (as Karlovic proved it), and we could not afford to have Isner more time around.
I only hope that every day is more clear the disruption that this guy has caused to our beloved sport. Very sad.
 
Why are super tiebreaks more nonsensical than regular tiebreaks?
Super Tiebreaks are much better than regular 12 Point Tiebreaks.

The main problem with regular Tiebreakers is that each Tiebreak point has too high a value in relation to most other Points in a Set. There is too much at stake. If one player has a poor run of points, there is not enough point left to get back. (For example, a player who is down four or five points in a regular 12 Point Tiebreaker is highly unlikely to recover, especially if it is at the end of a long tough Set or near the end of a long tough match.)

The beauty of a Super Tiebreaker is that it's possible for a player who is four or five points behind early in the Tiebreaker to recover and get back into it. There is more room for momentum shifts in a Super Tiebreaker. And this makes them more exciting especially when deciding the Final Set of a match.

And I don't have a problem with deciding matches with a Super Tiebreaker. Professional Tennis places too much emphasis on athleticism and endurance. It is much more like Boxing these days. I would rather see a higher level of tennis play for a shorter duration. Tennis players should be competing based on their tennis skills and mental prowess rather than their athletic abilities. Shorter formats promote this.
 
Super Tiebreaks are much better than regular 12 Point Tiebreaks.

The main problem with regular Tiebreakers is that each Tiebreak point has too high a value in relation to most other Points in a Set. There is too much at stake. If one player has a poor run of points, there is not enough point left to get back. (For example, a player who is down four or five points in a regular 12 Point Tiebreaker is highly unlikely to recover, especially if it is at the end of a long tough Set or near the end of a long tough match.)

The beauty of a Super Tiebreaker is that it's possible for a player who is four or five points behind early in the Tiebreaker to recover and get back into it. There is more room for momentum shifts in a Super Tiebreaker. And this makes them more exciting especially when deciding the Final Set of a match.

And I don't have a problem with deciding matches with a Super Tiebreaker. Professional Tennis places too much emphasis on athleticism and endurance. It is much more like Boxing these days. I would rather see a higher level of tennis play for a shorter duration. Tennis players should be competing based on their tennis skills and mental prowess rather than their athletic abilities. Shorter formats promote this.
If they should be competing based on their mental prowess, why don’t you support a regular TB, where each point has a bigger value, therefore the pressure is immediately bigger on both players, and their mental strength is more tested?
 
It makes sense the majors are going in this direction, given that the stars are getting older, and they'd have a better chance to win shorter, less physical matches than the standard. Maybe they'll eventually shorten to 3 sets in order to keep Federer in the game in his 40s.
 
If they should be competing based on their mental prowess, why don’t you support a regular TB, where each point has a bigger value, therefore the pressure is immediately bigger on both players, and their mental strength is more tested?
Mainly because Professional Tennis is primarily an "Entertainment" rather than a true sport.

Paying spectators are required to keep the thing running. Event organisers have a responsibility to their "audience" to deliver a product that has a certain value for money. Matches that finish too quickly is not a "good look".
 
It makes sense the majors are going in this direction, given that the stars are getting older, and they'd have a better chance to win shorter, less physical matches than the standard. Maybe they'll eventually shorten to 3 sets in order to keep Federer in the game in his 40s.
In 2018, playing Best of 5 Sets (with 6 game Sets) is a bit ridiculous given time constraint demands of Broadcasters an paying spectators.

I think, Best of 3 (6 game Sets) or Best of 5 (4 game Sets) would be much more entertaining and palatable.
 
If they should be competing based on their mental prowess, why don’t you support a regular TB, where each point has a bigger value, therefore the pressure is immediately bigger on both players, and their mental strength is more tested?
in a regular tiebreak, luck and the quality of the serve override that aspect more than in a super tiebreak.
 
Super Tiebreaks are much better than regular 12 Point Tiebreaks.

The main problem with regular Tiebreakers is that each Tiebreak point has too high a value in relation to most other Points in a Set. There is too much at stake. If one player has a poor run of points, there is not enough point left to get back. (For example, a player who is down four or five points in a regular 12 Point Tiebreaker is highly unlikely to recover, especially if it is at the end of a long tough Set or near the end of a long tough match.)

The beauty of a Super Tiebreaker is that it's possible for a player who is four or five points behind early in the Tiebreaker to recover and get back into it. There is more room for momentum shifts in a Super Tiebreaker. And this makes them more exciting especially when deciding the Final Set of a match.

And I don't have a problem with deciding matches with a Super Tiebreaker. Professional Tennis places too much emphasis on athleticism and endurance. It is much more like Boxing these days. I would rather see a higher level of tennis play for a shorter duration. Tennis players should be competing based on their tennis skills and mental prowess rather than their athletic abilities. Shorter formats promote this.
Well put, I tend to agree with these points.

Having played in a lot of tournaments where a super tiebreak is used instead of a full third set for scheduling reasons, I also think that super tiebreaks feel pretty different to regular tbs from the player's perspective.

It seems a decent compromise to me: long enough that it's less fluky than a regular tb, but brief enough that you're guaranteed an intense end to the match that doesn't risk going on forever.
 
How about this: eliminate the TB for regular sets. A set that ends 6-6 is a tie. At the end of the 5 sets, if the result is a tie (eg, each player wins 2 sets with 1 tie) then you go to super TB. Or just keep going, but it will be less common.

Note that by this scoring, Anderson would have beaten Isner in 5 sets with no overtime. 6-6, 6-6, 6-6, 6-4, 6-6.
 
Doesn't the tie "set" basically default it to the losing player.

6-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-3. still had to play four sets to break the tie. The winner might have been able to take the first set and then end it in three.
 
How about this: eliminate the TB for regular sets. A set that ends 6-6 is a tie. At the end of the 5 sets, if the result is a tie (eg, each player wins 2 sets with 1 tie) then you go to super TB. Or just keep going, but it will be less common.

Note that by this scoring, Anderson would have beaten Isner in 5 sets with no overtime. 6-6, 6-6, 6-6, 6-4, 6-6.
hmm, my concern is that it could lead to situations where for a long time the leading player would only need to hold serve
and i also sense a risk that as long as the players are still tied, the incentive to break serve is somewhat reduced.
and, exaggeratedly put, "a single tiebreak could decide the match". o_O
still an interesting idea though.
 
hmm, my concern is that it could lead to situations where for a long time the leading player would only need to hold serve
and i also sense a risk that as long as the players are still tied, the incentive to break serve is somewhat reduced.
and, exaggeratedly put, "a single tiebreak could decide the match". o_O
still an interesting idea though.
A single tiebreak can still decide the match tho, in all but RG at this point. At least here it would look like a special overtime - and not be as common. If anything, incentive to break serve increases because you can't just rely on winning a TB at the end of the set. Or that's what I think will happen, who really knows? I'm not under any illusion this will actually happen, just an idea.
 
Why all this mess? The solution is easier: just ban Isner, or wait a couple of years until he retires.
Well, actually, better just ban him. Servebots have very long careers (as Karlovic proved it), and we could not afford to have Isner more time around.
I only hope that every day is more clear the disruption that this guy has caused to our beloved sport. Very sad.
Frightened for their own future Anderson, Querrey, Karlovic & co would join Isner and form a breakaway Exhibition of Serving Tour.
 
A single tiebreak can still decide the match tho, in all but RG at this point. At least here it would look like a special overtime - and not be as common.
i was phrasing it exaggeratedly, but in the current format the tiebreaks force a number of decisions and that would be reduced.
that might be quite a problem in competitive/sports terms.

EloQuent said:
If anything, incentive to break serve increases because you can't just rely on winning a TB at the end of the set. Or that's what I think will happen, who really knows? I'm not under any illusion this will actually happen, just an idea.
but the format with tiebreaks means that the set will have to be decided in the end. that gives incentive to break serve.
if the set wouldn't need to be decided, i assume that the incentive dropped a bit in practice. not by very much though. it is not my main point of criticism.

but pretty sure that a majority of fans would find the format without tiebreaks significantly more boring. :p
 
How about this: eliminate the TB for regular sets. A set that ends 6-6 is a tie. At the end of the 5 sets, if the result is a tie (eg, each player wins 2 sets with 1 tie) then you go to super TB. Or just keep going, but it will be less common.

Note that by this scoring, Anderson would have beaten Isner in 5 sets with no overtime. 6-6, 6-6, 6-6, 6-4, 6-6.
Actually this does sound like an interesting idea. My only comment here would be they should tweak the rules so that if a set does end at 6-6, the player who was serving 2nd gets the privilege of serving first the next set (as originally done with sets going to a TB).
 
Top