Wouldn't that disadvantage the player who serves first in the TB in theory?whoever serves first in the TB is counted as their game so they receive the first game next set
you change ends as it's scored as a game, 7/6 odd number.
Yep. The tie-break's over, so you switch. The fact that you just switched one point ago is a coincidence. This wouldn't happen often, but in this scenario you'd switch two points in a row.so if i'm serving first in the tiebreak, and the score reaches 6-0, we swap sides, i win the next point, we swap sides again because it's 7-6?
no disadvantage at all, its actually in place to ensure that the same player doesnt serve first in both sets (which is an advantage - despite Gilbert's opinion)Wouldn't that disadvantage the player who serves first in the TB in theory?
If a tie-break is really down to the wire with no mini-breaks, then the player who serves first will face a set point first (at 5-6).
I don't know, but that sounds like a disadvantage if he has to bear the pressure of a set point first and cannot serve first in the next set.
Wrong. You switch sides based on where the tiebreak FINISHED.You switch sides in the next set according to the 7-6 score and not when you switched sides because you got to 6 points twice or 3 times. However many times you reached 6 points has nothing to do with the next set. Only from where the first server of the tiebreak served.
To be fair, Gilbert suggested opting to receive in the first set in order to get a little extra warm up time before serving in order to increase the chances for a hold. I think he would agree that serving first is an advantage in every other set. I believe someone did some statistical analysis of this theory and found that serving first is an advantage in every set except the first.no disadvantage at all, its actually in place to ensure that the same player doesnt serve first in both sets (which is an advantage - despite Gilbert's opinion)