Do you play a coman or traditional tie breaker on a 6 all set score in a singles match?

  • Coman

    Votes: 11 42.3%
  • Traditional

    Votes: 13 50.0%
  • Up to agreement with opponent

    Votes: 2 7.7%

  • Total voters
    26
I messed up on some shots and my opponent was too solid.
Do you play a coman tie breaker to break the 6 all tie? Or do you play the traditional, switch every six points?


 

5sets

Hall of Fame
Lol, you mean if you split sets? Ten point breaker. At 6-6 in a regular undeciding set, regular tiebreak first to 7 regular scoring.
 

schmke

Legend
Coman tie-breaks are just like regular tie-breaks, except the side changes are altered to switch after 1, then 5, then 9, then 13, etc. points.

The rationale is that it allows each player to continue serving from the same side they have been during the set. It also avoids someone having to serve the point at say 2-3, then switch sides before serving from the other side at 3-3. I believe "fairness" is also cited as a reason as by changing sides more frequently, the effects of sun/wind and there being a good/bad side have less chance of influencing the score since players are switching sides more often and the streak of points on the good/bad side are shorter.

I'm personally not a big fan of them, but that is the rationale, and some sections call for them to be used, at least come districts and sectionals. I think Nationals calls for them to be used too.
 

ktx

Professional
Only useful in doubles so you can serve from the same side. Even then it’s too much switching. I’ve had to play them in USTA singles before which is so dumb.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
Coman tie-breaks are just like regular tie-breaks, except the side changes are altered to switch after 1, then 5, then 9, then 13, etc. points.

The rationale is that it allows each player to continue serving from the same side they have been during the set. It also avoids someone having to serve the point at say 2-3, then switch sides before serving from the other side at 3-3. I believe "fairness" is also cited as a reason as by changing sides more frequently, the effects of sun/wind and there being a good/bad side have less chance of influencing the score since players are switching sides more often and the streak of points on the good/bad side are shorter.

I'm personally not a big fan of them, but that is the rationale, and some sections call for them to be used, at least come districts and sectionals. I think Nationals calls for them to be used too.
I can understand the rationale and even accept that it might be a marginally better format than a traditional tiebreak

nonetheless I think it’s totally unnecessary and not worth the confusion to make such a piddling tweak to the universal rules of the game at a local level
 

Creighton

Professional
I can understand the rationale and even accept that it might be a marginally better format than a traditional tiebreak

nonetheless I think it’s totally unnecessary and not worth the confusion to make such a piddling tweak to the universal rules of the game at a local level

Sometimes you have to be the change you wish to see in the world.
 
Good video and you are both good players, but has the obsession with split-stepping gone too far in rec tennis? I don't think either of you are getting anything out of hopping, then waiting for a second for the ball to get there. The white shirt guy even hops, stops, then takes a step, then hits the return. Has it gone too far? You tennis forum members, must be the judge!
 

TennisOTM

Professional
We always do the Coman side-switching in USTA matches, for any tiebreak. I thought it was bizarre and dumb at first, but I've grown to love it, even for singles. To me it is satisfying to switch sides at the same time that the serve switches from the first server to the second server, just like it was done during the set. Plus I'm always parched and appreciate the excuse to gulp a bit of water more often.
 

OnTheLine

Hall of Fame
Having only ever played USTA and WTT ... I have never played a traditional tie-break.
I have played a TON of tiebreakers, both set and match tiebreakers. (I have trouble closing out I guess). Even though I watch a lot of pro tennis, I don't think I could do a traditional one without being coached through it.
 
What is "Coman" ?

It's the last name of the person who came up with a new form of switching sides on a different pattern (not every 6 points but instead 1, then every 4), to accommodate 10 point tie breaks in lieu of a 3rd complete set in a 2 out of 3 set mach.

By switching the Coman way, both teams have a more fair chance in case one side of the court favors the other one.

It's important to know and understand both types of switching, TRADITIONAL and COMAN. In the modern recreational game, tie breaks occur very often, so knowing exactly what's going on can make it easier to focus and win them.
 
Good video and you are both good players, but has the obsession with split-stepping gone too far in rec tennis? I don't think either of you are getting anything out of hopping, then waiting for a second for the ball to get there. The white shirt guy even hops, stops, then takes a step, then hits the return. Has it gone too far? You tennis forum members, must be the judge!

Yes, at the speed we play we must split step as much. If you compare this video to an ATP video it may seem like we are moving too slow and too little actually.
 
Yes, at the speed we play we must split step as much. If you compare this video to an ATP video it may seem like we are moving too slow and too little actually.
Yes, I understand, I think you both move pretty well, I just am not sure if the split step on return of serve is "activating" anything really or helping anticipation, but at least it's part of your timing so no reason to mess with it.
 

5sets

Hall of Fame
Lol, I think I’ve played several tournaments and league matches where we’re supposed to play Coman but either no one cares or we all forget and we just switch on multiples of 6.
 

Creighton

Professional
Lol, I think I’ve played several tournaments and league matches where we’re supposed to play Coman but either no one cares or we all forget and we just switch on multiples of 6.

You can always do whatever you want at the end of the day if you agree to it.
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
I voted Coman on your poll because that's what I normally will play. However if playing singles and there's no wind/sun to deal with then I'll play a traditional. Also will sometimes won't even switch sides if just playing for fun.
 

TennisOTM

Professional
It's the last name of the person who came up with a new form of switching sides on a different pattern (not every 6 points but instead 1, then every 4), to accommodate 10 point tie breaks in lieu of a 3rd complete set in a 2 out of 3 set mach.

I don't think Coman side-switching has anything specifically to do with first-to-10-point tie breaks for the deciding 3rd set. The number of points needed to win a tie break and the procedure for switching sides are completely independent concepts. I think it's a common misconception that they are related just because USTA uses both of them. In fact I've found that many people believe that "Coman" refers to the first-to-10-point rule, leading to much confusion. It seems the new side-switching idea was originally designed for the normal first-to-seven tiebreak.

I also learned that the original name for the rule was not Coman, but "Balboa", which is so much cooler. Too bad it switched, how many Rocky jokes have we missed out on over the years.
 
I don't think Coman side-switching has anything specifically to do with first-to-10-point tie breaks for the deciding 3rd set. The number of points needed to win a tie break and the procedure for switching sides are completely independent concepts. I think it's a common misconception that they are related just because USTA uses both of them. In fact I've found that many people believe that "Coman" refers to the first-to-10-point rule, leading to much confusion. It seems the new side-switching idea was originally designed for the normal first-to-seven tiebreak.

I also learned that the original name for the rule was not Coman, but "Balboa", which is so much cooler. Too bad it switched, how many Rocky jokes have we missed out on over the years.

Rocky would have been the perfect name
 
Yes, I understand, I think you both move pretty well, I just am not sure if the split step on return of serve is "activating" anything really or helping anticipation, but at least it's part of your timing so no reason to mess with it.

The serve is the most powerful shot in tennis. (Maybe the overhead), and also is coming from a higher height. If you don't split step, it is hard to time it to return it without spraying. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is way easier to time the ball when you're already moving forward a bit. Also you cover way more the angles. Most pros split step on the return of serve, and those who don't have acquired skill at returning from a stationary position. That skill I don't have
 
The serve is the most powerful shot in tennis. (Maybe the overhead), and also is coming from a higher height. If you don't split step, it is hard to time it to return it without spraying. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is way easier to time the ball when you're already moving forward a bit. Also you cover way more the angles. Most pros split step on the return of serve, and those who don't have acquired skill at returning from a stationary position. That skill I don't have
Yes, I totally agree with you. What I am saying is your opponents happens so early it isn't helping him anticipate, such as 1:40 mark, the timing is off it seems. It's more of a split step, wait for a long time, take a step, then hit, at least for your opponent.
 

atatu

Legend
I used to be one of those old guys who grumbled about "too much switching" but now I prefer the coman format. If it's incredibly sunny or windy on one side it makes no sense that one player/team should have to serve on that side and then be down 0-6 at the switch.
 
Yes, I totally agree with you. What I am saying is your opponents happens so early it isn't helping him anticipate, such as 1:40 mark, the timing is off it seems. It's more of a split step, wait for a long time, take a step, then hit, at least for your opponent.
I looked and seems right to me. He starts early to time the toss/hit to have movement or be "landing" on the court to then move to either side. As you can tell in the example you pointed out, he does connect an aggressive return and ends inside the court. That's what the split step allowed him to do. Thanks so much for commenting and taking notes on this, I really like when players notice things like this.
 
I looked and seems right to me. He starts early to time the toss/hit to have movement or be "landing" on the court to then move to either side. As you can tell in the example you pointed out, he does connect an aggressive return and ends inside the court. That's what the split step allowed him to do. Thanks so much for commenting and taking notes on this, I really like when players notice things like this.
No worries, just seems like a lot of extra moving on his part. I see a ton of lower level players than you two doing crazy jump hop split steps, it's gotten a little extreme in rec tennis.
 

cks

Hall of Fame
I used to be one of those old guys who grumbled about "too much switching" but now I prefer the coman format. If it's incredibly sunny or windy on one side it makes no sense that one player/team should have to serve on that side and then be down 0-6 at the switch.
Same. I immediately liked Coman switching for doubles, since you keep getting to serve on the same side of the court.

It took me a bit longer to appreciate Coman rotation during singles, but I prefer it now over switching at 6 points.
 
Top