jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Why are you kidding? Clay is not a natural surfaceClay is not a natural surface.
JUST KIDDING !!!
The red clay is made up of crushed brick and other minerals
Why are you kidding? Clay is not a natural surfaceClay is not a natural surface.
JUST KIDDING !!!
Bigger mental battle?I wouldn’t call it nonsencial, but what difference will those 3 points make exactly? What’s the point other than for AO to differentiate itself from the USO?
Bigger mental battle?
Right. I forgot that clay isn't clay.Why are you kidding? Clay is not a natural surface
The red clay is made up of crushed brick and other minerals
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.what difference will those 3 points make exactly? What’s the point other than for AO to differentiate itself from the USO?
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.Why are super tiebreaks more nonsensical than regular tiebreaks?
Ben Rothenberg's opinions and face combine to be the stuff of nightmares.
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.
care to explain what you mean? the same it is just not.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.
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
Very ironic considering they've just uploaded this gem on their YouTube channel...
Maybe Roddick could have won that AO had he not been tired after that marathon.Very ironic considering they've just uploaded this gem on their YouTube channel...
care to explain what you mean? the same it is just not.
ah, that's where you got those 3 points from. anyway, the difference is 30%. that's significant.The players have to win 4 or 5 points respectively to win the TB.
Why all this mess? The solution is easier: just ban Isner, or wait a couple of years until he retires.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
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.
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.
in a regular tiebreak, luck and the quality of the serve override that aspect more than in a super tiebreak.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?
Well put, I tend to agree with these points.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.
the super tiebreak is the most ridiculous idea of them all
hmm, my concern is that it could lead to situations where for a long time the leading player would only need to hold serveHow 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.
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.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".
still an interesting idea though.
Because you can lose a point or two against your serve in a game and still hold easily. In contrast, if you lose just one point against your serve in a breaker, you can lose the breaker.Why not?
Frightened for their own future Anderson, Querrey, Karlovic & co would join Isner and form a breakaway Exhibition of Serving Tour.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.
i was phrasing it exaggeratedly, but in the current format the tiebreaks force a number of decisions and that would be reduced.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.
but the format with tiebreaks means that the set will have to be decided in the end. that gives incentive to break serve.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.
Wish they'd BAN the 1HBH for 2019 AO
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.
Wish they'd BAN the 1HBH for 2019 AO
Rothenberg brown nosing the WTA . Dude save it.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/tenni...s/news-story/b1d68bba679fff717dccc2b37403b091
"Please, stop throwing the women under the bus because the men demand two sets of self-indulgent foreplay before their matches get anywhere."
-Ben Rothenberg
I agree that the women should keep things as they are since they're only playing BO3 anyway. However, I don't agree with how Rothenberg addressed the issue. Too over the top for my liking.The final set super TB rule should definitely not apply to the women as they don't have a problem that needs fixing.
If the choice was whether to apply the final set super TB rule for both the men and women or not at all, I'd rather they did not apply it at all.
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.