After watching the ladies final last night, and seeing the MTO taken late in the fourth set when the no-injured player was ahead and appeared (to me) to have the momentum in the match.
Very good chance that Woz had an injury, but also a chance she wanted to use the MTO to halt Halep's momentum so near the finish line.
After MTO, Woz goes on to win next three games after MTO, and thus the match and the title.
I'm not discrediting Woz here... she earned the win with great play and credit to Woz for winning her first slam. Furthermore, whether she was injured or not, what she did was within the rules of the game.
That being said, it glaringly apparent that the MTO rules are very, very weak. If a player wanted to (and I'm not saying she did this) they could use the MTO as strategy without a real injury at least once a match...giving that player an unfair advantage.
Perhaps a counter argument is that the other player could always do the same (You use an MTO, I use an MTO)...but that doesn't seem like much of a solution either, and will only drag downy the integrity of the game further.
Everyone knows this is a problem in tennis. I know it's not a new situation.
But I just don't know what tennis could do or should do in order to make the game more fair concerning the rules of the MTO.
Or will the game just continue as is, where players who want to use the MTO as strategy can continue to have an advantage over players who only use the MTO as it is intended?
Proposed Solution, which is far from perfect (for women and men):
For grand slams and 1000's:
When player A takes an MTO, the player B gets visit with coach during the timeout.
Obviously a little silly as a solution, but can you imagine how drastically MTO's would drop in number?
More realistic proposal (& more in line w/OP):
When player A gets MTO, player B awarded first two points of following game.
Very good chance that Woz had an injury, but also a chance she wanted to use the MTO to halt Halep's momentum so near the finish line.
After MTO, Woz goes on to win next three games after MTO, and thus the match and the title.
I'm not discrediting Woz here... she earned the win with great play and credit to Woz for winning her first slam. Furthermore, whether she was injured or not, what she did was within the rules of the game.
That being said, it glaringly apparent that the MTO rules are very, very weak. If a player wanted to (and I'm not saying she did this) they could use the MTO as strategy without a real injury at least once a match...giving that player an unfair advantage.
Perhaps a counter argument is that the other player could always do the same (You use an MTO, I use an MTO)...but that doesn't seem like much of a solution either, and will only drag downy the integrity of the game further.
Everyone knows this is a problem in tennis. I know it's not a new situation.
But I just don't know what tennis could do or should do in order to make the game more fair concerning the rules of the MTO.
Or will the game just continue as is, where players who want to use the MTO as strategy can continue to have an advantage over players who only use the MTO as it is intended?
Proposed Solution, which is far from perfect (for women and men):
For grand slams and 1000's:
When player A takes an MTO, the player B gets visit with coach during the timeout.
Obviously a little silly as a solution, but can you imagine how drastically MTO's would drop in number?
More realistic proposal (& more in line w/OP):
When player A gets MTO, player B awarded first two points of following game.
Last edited:
