Mahut/Isner is why there SHOULDN'T be a 5th set tiebreak at Wimbledon

[IvanisevicServe]

Seriously...why would anyone want to avoid epic matches like this?

All of a sudden, the entire world is looking at the this match with their jaws dropped...and that can only be a good thing for tennis.

People who complain about them being too tired to have a chance in the next round...well, that's the way it goes. The longer it takes you to win your match, the more drained you will be in the next round. That's your own fault. Whether you play back-to-back 5 set matches with a tie break or one match that goes 168-166 in the 5th set, that's part of the game.

 

[vortex1]

I agree. Matches like this only happen once every 40-50 years. One of the reasons USO is a clown slam is because of 5th set tie breaks.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I like the way it is at wimbledon. Never understood the tie breaker in 5 set.

 

[Mustard]

Honestly, the people who are using this absolute epic match to call for 5th set tiebreaks at Wimbledon, don't deserve to be witness to this match. Under their plans, this kind of once in a lifetime match, wouldn't happen at all.

 

[OKUSA]

Mahut could play 5 of these matches in a row and still be fit enough for the finals. Guy is unreal

 

[Chenx15]

i agree a grand slam should not be decided by points but by actually breaking an opponents offense

 

[El Diablo]

Arranging the rules for an occurence seen once every 40-50 years makes very little sense to me. This sort of nonsense also unfairly penalizes whomever is waiting to play the winner of this match, as he may then have to squeeze subsequent matches into a shorter period of time for no fault of his own. The match itself speaks to the worst aspect of grass tennis, the overemphasis on the serve, a stroke originally intended to simply begin the point, not end it. Boring stuff, and the casual tennis fans I spoke to today think it's idiotic, not particularly interesting.

 

[Jchurch]

Honestly, the people who are using this absolute epic match to call for 5th set tiebreaks at Wimbledon, don't deserve to be witness to this match. Under their plans, this kind of once in a lifetime match, wouldn't happen at all.

Agreed. Could you imagine what that Stich Edberg semi would have been like? There is no reason to have a tie breaker in the 5th at any slam. I was shocked that the commentators were calling for an emergency tie break at 50 all. What is the emergency? Will Wimbledon explode if this match is completed?

 

[Mustard]

Agreed. Could you imagine what that Stich Edberg semi would have been like? There is no reason to have a tie breaker in the 5th at any slam. I was shocked that the commentators were calling for an emergency tie break at 50 all. What is the emergency? Will Wimbledon explode if this match is completed?

Nah, they are just impatient and want to be party poopers to the rest of us enjoying an epic match. I think we can safely assume that this sort of match will not be happening on a regular basis. The Gonzales vs. Pasarell match at 1969 Wimbledon really stood the test of time in being an epic match who's legend has lasted through generations. Mahut vs. Isner will be this generation's version of that match.

 

[Centered]

The match is an aberration, so it can't be easily used as a model to support your thesis.

Common 5 set matches are not historic and yet have considerable drawbacks when they come prior to finals. Furthermore, we also had a 16-14 5th set match that few people care about.

 

[Centered]

People who complain about them being too tired to have a chance in the next round...well, that's the way it goes.

That's not logic. "Well, that's the way it goes" is a meaningless statement.

The longer it takes you to win your match, the more drained you will be in the next round. That's your own fault.

No, it's penalization for playing well.

Players are fined for playing poorly and yet when players give everything they have, they're going to be penalized by fatigue.

And, the draw is not their fault, either.

The bottom line is that long epic battles can and should take place, in finals.

 

[johnkidd]

I think there should be a limited 5th set. If there is no 2 game margin, you play to 9 -9. Then you play a tiebreak.

Last year I think Roddick was disadvantaged by that 5th set going as long as it did. I think he got a bad break due to the lighting.

 

[Centered]

I think he got a bad break due to the lighting.

I am inclined to think slam finals should be unlimited, at least on grass since it's easier on the body than concrete. That's when exhaustion for the next round isn't a factor. That's when epic matches should take place.

As for lighting, if it plays a major role in the outcome then it's bad refereeing that's the problem.

 

[i8myshirt]

It seems awesome to be able to experience something like this as a tennis player and really shows how fit a tennis player can be, but I don't think it really appeals too much for people that don't usually watch tennis, and it might actually make them lose any interest they had.

 

[Shaolin]

I think its amazing but I feel sorry for these guys who are going to be paid the same as some WTA player that finishes their match 6-0, 6-4 in 48 min. Very unfair.

 

[bluetrain4]

I love the variety. Don't see why all the Slams have to be the same. Annoys me that people insist on conformity. The grandeur of the full fifth set, and the persistence it takes to win, and, on the other hand, the visceral gut-check and immediacy of the fifth set tiebreak. They test and pressure the players differently. They're thrilling in their own ways. I like seeing both and would never want Slams to all have one or the other.

I don't see why so many people have a problem with the USO tiebreak. If it's that much of a problem, if you believe that cutting a set short is so against the principles of "real" tennis, seriously, how can you accept it in any other set?

I've heard some people suggest that there should be some solution to prevent this sort of match from happening (as exciting as it is, it really doesn't do the tournament any good in terms of scheduling or the players any good in terms of fitness), but it's such an anomaly that there is no use attempting to plan for it. We probably won't see anything close to this for 60 years. Enjoy the ride.

 

[cork_screw]

Yeah I was sitting at a bar watching this whole match, people strolling in for the world cup casually looked up at the score and were like, "oh this probably happens once every year, right?" People who don't follow tennis don't know this is a very rare sight. It's like when Wilt Chamberlin scored 100 pts in a game.

You will never see this again period.

 

[InvisibleSoul]

So WHAT IF they changed it to be a tiebreak in the 5th set, but two guys end up playing the tiebreak to 500-500 points each? Then what? By those people's logic, we should get rid of tiebreaks too because it also has the potential of going on forever.

This is a ONCE IN A LIFETIME occurrence. It's ridiculous to think that rules has to be drastically changed because of a freak situation.

 

[quest01]

This is what grass court tennis is all about, big serving, a little serve and volley, and the point is over. Most people may find this kind of play boring but its a unique way to play the game. I prefer long rallies that was seen during the clay court season but seeing less rallies or even no rallies is a nice change of pace sometimes.

 

[FD3S]

This is what grass court tennis is all about, big serving, a little serve and volley, and the point is over. Most people may find this kind of play boring but its a unique way to play the game. I prefer long rallies that was seen during the clay court season but seeing less rallies or even no rallies is a nice change of pace sometimes.

Now, from John Isner vs Nicholas Mahut - What will be the final score?

One of these players needs to throw in the towel and just quit or tank the match on serve by double faulting 4 straight times because this is unreal and ridiculous. I cannot comprehend on why someone would want to play so many games, its time for one of these players whoever it may be to just say to themselves enough is enough and its time to quit, just QUIT! What we have seen today was an embarrassment to everything Tennis stands for, its a travesty.

... so uh, what changed?

 

[IvanisevicServe]

That's not logic. "Well, that's the way it goes" is a meaningless statement.

No it isn't. The point is that it's the player's own responsibility to win a match quickly in order to do well in the long run. If you are too tired later on, it's your own doing.

No, it's penalization for playing well.

No it isn't. If you played well enough, you wouldn't have needed to win such a long match against your opponent.

Players are fined for playing poorly and yet when players give everything they have, they're going to be penalized by fatigue.

Again, it's a player's own responsibility to win a match in such a way that they AREN'T fatigued.

And, the draw is not their fault, either.

The bottom line is that long epic battles can and should take place, in finals.

Oh, so what are you saying? We should do away with the draw, too, since it can be tough for one player and easy for another? Huh?

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

 

[Messarger]

One of these players needs to throw in the towel and just quit or tank the match on serve by double faulting 4 straight times because this is unreal and ridiculous. I cannot comprehend on why someone would want to play so many games, its time for one of these players whoever it may be to just say to themselves enough is enough and its time to quit, just QUIT! What we have seen today was an embarrassment to everything Tennis stands for, its a travesty.

I dont know if you really said this but if you did then you dont deserve to watch tennis.

 

[swordtennis]

The only argument I see is having tie breaks b4 the final. Due 2 the fact that the tournament is probably over 4 the winner after this. Nothing left in the tank.
In the final have it played out with no tie breaks.

 

[rosenstar]

Seriously...why would anyone want to avoid epic matches like this?

All of a sudden, the entire world is looking at the this match with their jaws dropped...and that can only be a good thing for tennis.

People who complain about them being too tired to have a chance in the next round...well, that's the way it goes. The longer it takes you to win your match, the more drained you will be in the next round. That's your own fault. Whether you play back-to-back 5 set matches with a tie break or one match that goes 168-166 in the 5th set, that's part of the game.

I'd like to see a stat on how players who go into "overtime" in a fifth set fair the next round of the tournament. In the finals, I'm fine with it, but in the middle of the tournament, it's not fair to the players. They've already played 5 sets, and you want them to play more.

Yeah, it's cool to watch this match, but I'm not sure it's practical. I'd be fine with making a 5th set tie break in grand slams, but win by two games in the final.

Just My Humble Opinion...

 

[El Diablo]

I think charliefederer spells it out well in a post in another section (was it health and fitness?). The risk of injury to players who may have to hit over 600 or 700 serves in such a match is excessive. This isn't baseball where you take a guy out after a hundred pitches. In pro tennis the players eventually get what they want in terms of rules, and I hope they get together to prevent this sort of thing in the future. A tiebreaker can also go on forever, but it's far less likely.

 

[subban]

But what great tennis was there? It was mostly serves for aces not really any exciting rallies. Unless your a fan of just the serve, the appeal of this match was only being the longest match in history.

 

[swordtennis]

But what great tennis was there? It was mostly serves for aces not really any exciting rallies. Unless your a fan of just the serve, the appeal of this match was only being the longest match in history.

There are tremendous winners and touch Volleys in this match. Just by chance are you a Nadal fan? Just asking b4 the convo goes further...

 

[ilikepigs]

How about, no tiebreak in the fifth only in the FINALS of a grand slam?

 

[swordtennis]

How about, no tiebreak in the fifth only in the FINALS of a grand slam?

IMO a very nice compromise.

 

[tim8]

Why is it unfair to the players? If they wanted to exit the match rested shouldn't they have won in before it got 64-64? That's what players get when they aren't good enough to win in 3 sets: they have to expend more effort.

 

[JT_2eighty]

Yes, this is mainly a service battle, but if you see the stats, as of right now at 65-64, Isner has 101 net approaches, and Mahut with 94.

So, 129 games into the 5th set, let's say each game averages 6 points, so about 775 points played, with 195 of those being net points, about 25% of points played involved a net point.

Sure, it ain't s&v madness, but to say this match is *just* big serves is oversimplifying it a bit, eh? Especially since each is 70%+ on their net point conversion. It's great tennis being played, just enjoy that you're all witnessing history.

 

[rocket]

IIn the finals, I'm fine with it, but in the middle of the tournament, it's not fair to the players.

don't worry, these 2 players are very, very happy to make tennis history. what other records can they set otherwise?

 

[DRII]

Don't know about that.

But I know one thing: extremely tall players like Isner should have bigger seats for change over breaks. His knees look like they're extremely stressed when he's sitting down.

Great job Big John!

 

[subban]

Yes, this is mainly a service battle, but if you see the stats, as of right now at 65-64, Isner has 101 net approaches, and Mahut with 94.

So, 129 games into the 5th set, let's say each game averages 6 points, so about 775 points played, with 195 of those being net points, about 25% of points played involved a net point.

Sure, it ain't s&v madness, but to say this match is *just* big serves is oversimplifying it a bit, eh? Especially since each is 70%+ on their net point conversion. It's great tennis being played, just enjoy that you're all witnessing history.

Ok, there is some net play. But somehow with the final last year and these longer matches we might not be seeing history in the making. Something tells me we are seeing the new grass at Wimbledon slow the play down to have this kind of match. In the future we might see more of these types of matches.