Who Wants 10 Point Match Tie Breaker In Lieu Of 3rd Set?

TennisCJC

Legend
I think tennis would be better if all league and tournament matches used a 10 point match tie breaker in lieu of a 3rd set.

Here's why:
1. Adults need to play shorter matches to reduce overuse injuries. I know many older adult players with chronic overuse injuries to backs, knees, elbows, shoulders, etc. Shorter matches would help make the injury situation better for many.
2. Reduce court time requirements for team and for individual matches. It's approximately $20 to reserve a court for 2 hours in my area. Some facilities limit the time to 2 hours. In my last 10 singles league matches, 8 of the matches were straight sets with a 10 minute warm-up and these 8 matches ALL went over 2 hours. Almost any 3 set singles or doubles match will take longer than 2 hours. It's too expensive and too difficult to reserve 2.5 or 3 hours for a match.
3. Shorten league team matches. USTA and other team matches are frequently 5 individual matches. I've seen team meets take over 6 hours to compete if only 2 courts are available. This is way too long for captains, co-captains and teammates to attend the entire meet. Frequently, the players on the lower lines, end up waiting for significant amounts of time to get on court. A match tie-breaker in lieu of a 3rd set would shorten the time for a team meet considerable and make everyone's life easier.
4. Improves tournaments by NOT requiring players to play long 3 set matches on consecutive days or worse even on the same day. Even tournament level players who are fit would benefit from not being required to play 3 setters for multiple consecutive days. I've seen draws that require seniors to play 2 singles matches on the same day and the thought of 2 consecutive 3 set matches in one day for anyone past 30 years old is frankly silly.

Young people are going to say "but, I want to wear them down with my incredible consistency and fitness" but 2 full sets and a match tie break still allow plenty of opportunity to use consistency and fitness to win. And, young players will be 40 years old one day and less likely to have chronic injuries if they shorten matches. Also, it may actually improve your game if you have to be more tactical and aggressive instead of playing run and push tennis.

Let's be realistic and accept that most adults have jobs, families and many have some type of chronic injury. My view is the vast majority of even serious tennis players simply don't have the time or bodies to be expected to play long 3 set matches. I know it's part of the tennis tradition to play 3 set matches but I think shortening the matches would improve tennis participation. I personally think this is better for the game of tennis. I admit that I am 65 and still playing singles and it would help me personally. But, I honestly think everyone would benefit in the long run from using a 10 point match tie break in lieu of a full 3rd set.

Thoughts?
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
I prefer playing full matches and have no problem with finding the time, court reservation or fitness to play three sets. Older players haven’t had a problem playing full matches in more than 150 years of tennis history and I don’t know why it needs to be changed. I stopped playing USTA tournament tennis after they went to the Fast 4 format and will have less interest in playing leagues if they mandate 10-point TBs instead of 10 sets. I can find social matches every day at my club to play a full match format and that is what I typically do.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I think tennis would be better if all league and tournament matches used a 10 point match tie breaker in lieu of a 3rd set.

Here's why:
1. Adults need to play shorter matches to reduce overuse injuries. I know many older adult players with chronic overuse injuries to backs, knees, elbows, shoulders, etc. Shorter matches would help make the injury situation better for many.

Using that logic, we should also play no Ad and Fast Four. People with chronic overuse injuries aren't suddenly going to be healed by playing 3rd set TBs. There will be marginally fewer injuries but enough to be significant?

I play because I want to play. I don't want to limit my playing. True, Bo5 is probably beyond me for singles but not for doubles.

2. Reduce court time requirements for team and for individual matches. It's approximately $20 to reserve a court for 2 hours in my area. Some facilities limit the time to 2 hours. In my last 10 singles league matches, 8 of the matches were straight sets with a 10 minute warm-up and these 8 matches ALL went over 2 hours. Almost any 3 set singles or doubles match will take longer than 2 hours. It's too expensive and too difficult to reserve 2.5 or 3 hours for a match.

I guess it depends on how much more it costs and what that does to participation.

3. Shorten league team matches. USTA and other team matches are frequently 5 individual matches. I've seen team meets take over 6 hours to compete if only 2 courts are available. This is way too long for captains, co-captains and teammates to attend the entire meet. Frequently, the players on the lower lines, end up waiting for significant amounts of time to get on court. A match tie-breaker in lieu of a 3rd set would shorten the time for a team meet considerable and make everyone's life easier.

I've never played a match that took 6 hours due to court availability. I have played matches where not all teams could play simultaneously and that's a bummer but I never viewed shortening matches as being the answer. That's addressing the symptom, not the cause.

4. Improves tournaments by NOT requiring players to play long 3 set matches on consecutive days or worse even on the same day. Even tournament level players who are fit would benefit from not being required to play 3 setters for multiple consecutive days. I've seen draws that require seniors to play 2 singles matches on the same day and the thought of 2 consecutive 3 set matches in one day for anyone past 30 years old is frankly silly.

Longer formats certainly place a bigger premium on fitness and endurance.

Young people are going to say "but, I want to wear them down with my incredible consistency and fitness" but 2 full sets and a match tie break still allow plenty of opportunity to use consistency and fitness to win. And, young players will be 40 years old one day and less likely to have chronic injuries if they shorten matches. Also, it may actually improve your game if you have to be more tactical and aggressive instead of playing run and push tennis.

Let's be realistic and accept that most adults have jobs, families and many have some type of chronic injury. My view is the vast majority of even serious tennis players simply don't have the time or bodies to be expected to play long 3 set matches. I know it's part of the tennis tradition to play 3 set matches but I think shortening the matches would improve tennis participation. I personally think this is better for the game of tennis. I admit that I am 65 and still playing singles and it would help me personally. But, I honestly think everyone would benefit in the long run from using a 10 point match tie break in lieu of a full 3rd set.

Thoughts?

I see where you're going with this but if your logic is accepted, someone else can simply take it further. I like to joke that with all of the rule changes in the direction of shorter matches, pretty soon we'll just flip a coin to see who won.

But the change might well be made because the USTA is responding to the Baby Boomers, who probably still dominate league fee generation. What the BBs want, they get.
 
This is the situation in the majority of USTA leagues and tourneys. Although, I'll often offer to play a third set or offer the idea to an opponent(s) if the weather is nice etc. Then we just make up a tiebreak score that semi-reflects the real set we play. Some people literally think this is gamesmanship though which is silly, but it happens. I just want to play more.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
This is the situation in the majority of USTA leagues and tourneys. Although, I'll often offer to play a third set or offer the idea to an opponent(s) if the weather is nice etc. Then we just make up a tiebreak score that semi-reflects the real set we play. Some people literally think this is gamesmanship though which is silly, but it happens. I just want to play more.

How is it gamesmanship if the other person is willing? I think that's a great idea assuming there are courts available.
 
How is it gamesmanship if the other person is willing? I think that's a great idea assuming there are courts available.
Oh, I mean they refuse thinking it is some sort of advantage I'm trying to create or that's their first reaction. It's a good way to find out who takes things way too seriously.
 
D

Deleted member 781523

Guest
10 pt breakers are the worst thing to happen to tennis in a long time. Coming back after a significant layoff, and it seems like every event has a third set breaker these days. Really skews things in the favor of retrievers/pushers who don’t need a few games or a set to get dialed in.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
Using that logic, we should also play no Ad and Fast Four. People with chronic overuse injuries aren't suddenly going to be healed by playing 3rd set TBs. There will be marginally fewer injuries but enough to be significant?
I play because I want to play. I don't want to limit my playing. True, Bo5 is probably beyond me for singles but not for doubles.
I guess it depends on how much more it costs and what that does to participation.
I've never played a match that took 6 hours due to court availability. I have played matches where not all teams could play simultaneously and that's a bummer but I never viewed shortening matches as being the answer. That's addressing the symptom, not the cause.
Longer formats certainly place a bigger premium on fitness and endurance
I see where you're going with this but if your logic is accepted, someone else can simply take it further. I like to joke that with all of the rule changes in the direction of shorter matches, pretty soon we'll just flip a coin to see who won.
But the change might well be made because the USTA is responding to the Baby Boomers, who probably still dominate league fee generation. What the BBs want, they get.

Not all changes are going to go to the extreme case. If we use a match tie breaker instead of a full 3rd set, it doesn't mean sets will be shortened in the future. I simply think that a full 3 set commitment requires 2.5 hours or more on average and I don't think that is good for adult recreational players or the game of tennis. I've seen several USTA matches and local ALTA (Atlanta league) team matches that require 5 individual matches take 6 hours when only 2 courts are available for play. It's rare to finish a team meet on 2 courts in under 5 hours. Usually, the beer is gone after 4 hours so that's another reason to shorten team meets.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Oh, I mean they refuse thinking it is some sort of advantage I'm trying to create or that's their first reaction. It's a good way to find out who takes things way too seriously.

Well, it might well be to your advantage if the opponent knows their fitness and endurance is suspect.

I'd welcome the chance unless I was cramping or some other outlier thing was happening. After all, I'm out there to play not leave ASAP.
 

ChrisG

Professional
It's getting quite common here in France, and it's a shame. Most of the players I know are against it but it seems as people in charge of tournaments and competitions don't really care.
It's pure greed : less time on the court means more matches, more players and more fees paid to the organization.

I believe it changes the way the game is meant to be played, as luck and momentum get to much importance compared to the other elements involved in a tennis game
 
I think 10 point tiebreaker should be default. But - like one responder said - by all means play a third set and report a 10 point tie breaker score. The opposite is true to. You can play a ten point tiebreaker and report a third set score (I’ve done this is different match situations at 2-3 set events). In my case, this has nothing to do with lack of fitness to play a third set. It’s more about time management.
 
Last edited:

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Not all changes are going to go to the extreme case. If we use a match tie breaker instead of a full 3rd set, it doesn't mean sets will be shortened in the future. I simply think that a full 3 set commitment requires 2.5 hours or more on average and I don't think that is good for adult recreational players or the game of tennis. I've seen several USTA matches and local ALTA (Atlanta league) team matches that require 5 individual matches take 6 hours when only 2 courts are available for play. It's rare to finish a team meet on 2 courts in under 5 hours. Usually, the beer is gone after 4 hours so that's another reason to shorten team meets.

I'm not disagreeing with your scenario but again, the solution addresses the symptoms [not enough courts and beer] rather than the cause [get more courts and more beer].

I recognize that one of these two solutions is not so feasible [I mean, beer doesn't grow on trees, right?].
 

Purestriker

Legend
I think tennis would be better if all league and tournament matches used a 10 point match tie breaker in lieu of a 3rd set.

Here's why:
1. Adults need to play shorter matches to reduce overuse injuries. I know many older adult players with chronic overuse injuries to backs, knees, elbows, shoulders, etc. Shorter matches would help make the injury situation better for many.
2. Reduce court time requirements for team and for individual matches. It's approximately $20 to reserve a court for 2 hours in my area. Some facilities limit the time to 2 hours. In my last 10 singles league matches, 8 of the matches were straight sets with a 10 minute warm-up and these 8 matches ALL went over 2 hours. Almost any 3 set singles or doubles match will take longer than 2 hours. It's too expensive and too difficult to reserve 2.5 or 3 hours for a match.
3. Shorten league team matches. USTA and other team matches are frequently 5 individual matches. I've seen team meets take over 6 hours to compete if only 2 courts are available. This is way too long for captains, co-captains and teammates to attend the entire meet. Frequently, the players on the lower lines, end up waiting for significant amounts of time to get on court. A match tie-breaker in lieu of a 3rd set would shorten the time for a team meet considerable and make everyone's life easier.
4. Improves tournaments by NOT requiring players to play long 3 set matches on consecutive days or worse even on the same day. Even tournament level players who are fit would benefit from not being required to play 3 setters for multiple consecutive days. I've seen draws that require seniors to play 2 singles matches on the same day and the thought of 2 consecutive 3 set matches in one day for anyone past 30 years old is frankly silly.

Young people are going to say "but, I want to wear them down with my incredible consistency and fitness" but 2 full sets and a match tie break still allow plenty of opportunity to use consistency and fitness to win. And, young players will be 40 years old one day and less likely to have chronic injuries if they shorten matches. Also, it may actually improve your game if you have to be more tactical and aggressive instead of playing run and push tennis.

Let's be realistic and accept that most adults have jobs, families and many have some type of chronic injury. My view is the vast majority of even serious tennis players simply don't have the time or bodies to be expected to play long 3 set matches. I know it's part of the tennis tradition to play 3 set matches but I think shortening the matches would improve tennis participation. I personally think this is better for the game of tennis. I admit that I am 65 and still playing singles and it would help me personally. But, I honestly think everyone would benefit in the long run from using a 10 point match tie break in lieu of a full 3rd set.

Thoughts?
We have a 10 pointer and I would rather a third. Anything can happen on a tiebreak. But with limited indoor courts in the winter we would time out before finishing.
 

nyta2

Hall of Fame
we have 10pt tb for 3rd set in ny area.
mainly because court time reservations are often strict.
even with 2h, some of matches have gone over time, or gets dark.

longest 3-set tournament match i played (and lost), took 3.5h... but i was still single and could afford the time to be away from home for 5h+, not to mention the recovery time afterwards.
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
we have 10pt tb for 3rd set in ny area.
mainly because court time reservations are often strict.
even with 2h, some of matches have gone over time, or gets dark.

longest 3-set tournament match i played (and lost), took 3.5h... but i was still single and could afford the time to be away from home for 5h+, not to mention the recovery time afterwards.
Took 8 pitchers of beer to re-hydrate and recover after league tennis.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
I think tennis would be better if all league and tournament matches used a 10 point match tie breaker in lieu of a 3rd set.

Here's why:
1. Adults need to play shorter matches to reduce overuse injuries. I know many older adult players with chronic overuse injuries to backs, knees, elbows, shoulders, etc. Shorter matches would help make the injury situation better for many.
2. Reduce court time requirements for team and for individual matches. It's approximately $20 to reserve a court for 2 hours in my area. Some facilities limit the time to 2 hours. In my last 10 singles league matches, 8 of the matches were straight sets with a 10 minute warm-up and these 8 matches ALL went over 2 hours. Almost any 3 set singles or doubles match will take longer than 2 hours. It's too expensive and too difficult to reserve 2.5 or 3 hours for a match.
3. Shorten league team matches. USTA and other team matches are frequently 5 individual matches. I've seen team meets take over 6 hours to compete if only 2 courts are available. This is way too long for captains, co-captains and teammates to attend the entire meet. Frequently, the players on the lower lines, end up waiting for significant amounts of time to get on court. A match tie-breaker in lieu of a 3rd set would shorten the time for a team meet considerable and make everyone's life easier.
4. Improves tournaments by NOT requiring players to play long 3 set matches on consecutive days or worse even on the same day. Even tournament level players who are fit would benefit from not being required to play 3 setters for multiple consecutive days. I've seen draws that require seniors to play 2 singles matches on the same day and the thought of 2 consecutive 3 set matches in one day for anyone past 30 years old is frankly silly.

Young people are going to say "but, I want to wear them down with my incredible consistency and fitness" but 2 full sets and a match tie break still allow plenty of opportunity to use consistency and fitness to win. And, young players will be 40 years old one day and less likely to have chronic injuries if they shorten matches. Also, it may actually improve your game if you have to be more tactical and aggressive instead of playing run and push tennis.

Let's be realistic and accept that most adults have jobs, families and many have some type of chronic injury. My view is the vast majority of even serious tennis players simply don't have the time or bodies to be expected to play long 3 set matches. I know it's part of the tennis tradition to play 3 set matches but I think shortening the matches would improve tennis participation. I personally think this is better for the game of tennis. I admit that I am 65 and still playing singles and it would help me personally. But, I honestly think everyone would benefit in the long run from using a 10 point match tie break in lieu of a full 3rd set.

Thoughts?
Your suggested change has already been implemented.
 

beltsman

G.O.A.T.
I think tennis would be better if all league and tournament matches used a 10 point match tie breaker in lieu of a 3rd set.

Here's why:
1. Adults need to play shorter matches to reduce overuse injuries. I know many older adult players with chronic overuse injuries to backs, knees, elbows, shoulders, etc. Shorter matches would help make the injury situation better for many.
2. Reduce court time requirements for team and for individual matches. It's approximately $20 to reserve a court for 2 hours in my area. Some facilities limit the time to 2 hours. In my last 10 singles league matches, 8 of the matches were straight sets with a 10 minute warm-up and these 8 matches ALL went over 2 hours. Almost any 3 set singles or doubles match will take longer than 2 hours. It's too expensive and too difficult to reserve 2.5 or 3 hours for a match.
3. Shorten league team matches. USTA and other team matches are frequently 5 individual matches. I've seen team meets take over 6 hours to compete if only 2 courts are available. This is way too long for captains, co-captains and teammates to attend the entire meet. Frequently, the players on the lower lines, end up waiting for significant amounts of time to get on court. A match tie-breaker in lieu of a 3rd set would shorten the time for a team meet considerable and make everyone's life easier.
4. Improves tournaments by NOT requiring players to play long 3 set matches on consecutive days or worse even on the same day. Even tournament level players who are fit would benefit from not being required to play 3 setters for multiple consecutive days. I've seen draws that require seniors to play 2 singles matches on the same day and the thought of 2 consecutive 3 set matches in one day for anyone past 30 years old is frankly silly.

Young people are going to say "but, I want to wear them down with my incredible consistency and fitness" but 2 full sets and a match tie break still allow plenty of opportunity to use consistency and fitness to win. And, young players will be 40 years old one day and less likely to have chronic injuries if they shorten matches. Also, it may actually improve your game if you have to be more tactical and aggressive instead of playing run and push tennis.

Let's be realistic and accept that most adults have jobs, families and many have some type of chronic injury. My view is the vast majority of even serious tennis players simply don't have the time or bodies to be expected to play long 3 set matches. I know it's part of the tennis tradition to play 3 set matches but I think shortening the matches would improve tennis participation. I personally think this is better for the game of tennis. I admit that I am 65 and still playing singles and it would help me personally. But, I honestly think everyone would benefit in the long run from using a 10 point match tie break in lieu of a full 3rd set.

Thoughts?

I agree simply because of the time commitment for a full 3 sets. Matches can easily last 3 hours, plus warmup time, plus stretching, plus driving, plus shower, you end up with a 5 hour time commitment. It's too difficult with jobs, family, etc. I just don't have time due to family needs. My flex league allows both types of match, but some players refuse to play a tiebreaker or make a big stink when I ask.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Best-of-3 was fun back in my younger days. The reality of getting older and not having as much time for tennis is that the body is never in good enough tennis shape to play 3 sets of singles. Heck, the times I’m playing frequently enough for my body to survive 2 sets plus a super without risking injury are rare these days.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
The same guys who complain that they can’t find 3 hours for tennis have no problem spending half a day playing 18 holes of golf. It is usually the fitness they lack that makes them want to play shorter matches.

I understand if court reservations (especially in places with only expensive indoor courts) makes it an issue to play longer matches. But, otherwise asking for shorter matches is a way to try to reduce the handicap that unfit players have. I am 53 years old and relish playing long singles matches against younger players because I’m very fit and work hard on lower body strength training - using age as an excuse is also for those who don’t want to put in the extra time to be ready to play a physical sport.
 
Last edited:
The same guys who complain that they can’t find 3 hours for tennis have no problem spending half a day playing 18 holes of golf. It is usually the fitness they lack that makes them want to play shorter matches.

I understand if court reservations (especially in places with only expensive indoor courts) makes it an issue to play longer matches. But, otherwise asking for shorter matches is a way to try to reduce the handicap that unfit players have. I am 53 years old and relish playing long singles matches against younger players because I’m very fit and work hard on lower body strength training - using age as an excuse is also for those who don’t want to put in the extra time to be ready to play a physical sport.
Agree with this. I can’t stand some guys use age as an excuse. You can be out of shape at any age. I’m upset that 40 and over league did away with singles in norcal just when I m about to turn 40! Its a stupid idea to think 40+ are to old for singles. I don’t get it. I do respect my opponents time constraints though and that’s why I think a 10 pointer should be default unless both players agree to play a full third. You can always report a super tiebreaker score after playing the full third in many events.
 

ktx

Professional
I like playing 2/3 sets for USTA, but I was able to play in a weekday morning league so courts were freely available. IMO the only reason to have a supertiebreaker in lieu is due to time constraints. I really don't like being out at a league match 6-11 on a weeknight.
 

sovertennis

Professional
Although I'm easily capable of playing a full three-setter, I've come to like the 10 point-decider. It makes winning the first set less of a determinant to winning the match, and thus makes the required focus more important. I also think it increases the level of play when both, or all four, players know the end point for the match will be somewhat shorter than it would be for a three setter. Earlier this week, I played a 4.5 dubs match that ended in the 10 pointer and lasted two hours, including a very short warm up. It was high quality tennis for the entirety.
 

PK6

Semi-Pro
The same guys who complain that they can’t find 3 hours for tennis have no problem spending half a day playing 18 holes of golf. It is usually the fitness they lack that makes them want to play shorter matches.

I understand if court reservations (especially in places with only expensive indoor courts) makes it an issue to play longer matches. But, otherwise asking for shorter matches is a way to try to reduce the handicap that unfit players have. I am 53 years old and relish playing long singles matches against younger players because I’m very fit and work hard on lower body strength training - using age as an excuse is also for those who don’t want to put in the extra time to be ready to play a physical sport.
Totally agree with you!!!! You need to be in shape to play and not play to get in shape!!! To many don’t believe this in league where I play and they are idiots!!!! For this reason im thisclose to quit playing tennis. Some of my teammates rather have social fellowship with other teams when match is over, WTF!!! Other teams don’t care about that they want to win. My team needs to adapt this attitude as well putting work OFF the courts be in working out/nutrition/hydration. I’ve tried to do that when I was captain and they didn’t care about this. Now im
Sooo glad im not captain anymore and as result lost interest in playing USTA anymore. Great post on this!!!
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
Our league does 3rd set tiebreaker which I don’t like. Should be full 3rd set.
Started our matches at 7pm EDT, dusk by 9pm or less. Whatchagonna do when daylight comes up short again. Last year I played we finnished so quickly we left the park, went back to our club, played a set then Hydrated the next two hrs. Of course mgmt locked us out. Bar hopping mid-week gets old.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
In the northern states where you basically have to book indoors 8 out of 12 months playing anything other than a 10 point tiebreaker would be very unworkable and a waste of court time. You would have to book all the courts for at least 3 hours and most matches would likely take less than half that time because they wouldn't even go into the third set. And then if you are trying to play a double header you have players either going from one match immediately into another or they are sitting around for an hour and a half before the next match.

The trade-off to having best out of three and blocking that court time means fewer matches can be played at any given facility. Personally I wish there were more match opportunities not fewer so I am accepting of the 10 point tie break in my area. If I am outside in the summer sure then best out of three, or even best out of five is fine.
 

TennisOTM

Professional
For doubles matches I'd prefer playing 3 full sets. In my weekly doubles group with evenly-matched players we can routinely finish 3 full sets plus a healthy warmup within our 2-hour court booking. League doubles matches often feel too short with only two sets plus maybe a match tiebreak.

Singles, though, can take much longer. Longer rallies, longer cumulative rest time between points and games, longer time to retrieve balls between points and after netted first serves, etc. For best of three full sets in singles, the variance in possible match duration is huge. As a busy person it's good know that a weeknight 6pm league match will likely be done by or close to 8, without having to plan for the possibility that I'll be slugging it out until 9:30 or something.

If I'm setting aside a chunk of a week / weekend to play in a tournament, that's another story.
 

Chalkdust

Professional
For matches that count, I would prefer a full third set because I think there is less variability in the outcome (the better player wins more often vs a TB).

Having said that, most courts around here work with 1.5 hour reservations and even when I can get a court for longer, I do like timeboxing to 1.5 hours because it makes it easier to plan my day and schedule my time.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Tie breaks just so damn more exciting than a full set. Nothing gets the juices flowing like the a TB where each point is magnified.
love ‘em. Wish every match was a best of 5 tiebreakers.
 

Max G.

Legend
It just makes more sense for timing reasons. Where I am now, all the tennis is indoors, so of course you get the courts for two hours flat and then you're out. Two hours could be enough for three quick sets - but if a match is close enough that it's going to a third set, good chance the sets aren't quick. I've had a 6-1 1-6 1-0 match take the full two hours.

And even outdoors, if it's at a club, there could be somebody waiting for the court after, or it could be at the end of the day and the club is closing, etc.

It feels like 90% of the time I'm playing an organized match, I can't ACTUALLY use the court for more than 2 hours. So supertiebreak it is.

There's that other 10% where technically I could. ...but at this point I'm just used to superties and so I'd play them even if technically I don't have to, if it's my choice.
 

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
I do not know of any USTA or UTR or local league matches that play a full 3rd set. Is this an issue in other areas? Not even a discussion where I am.

I was thinking the same thing. The OP is posting this idea like 10 point superbreakers in place of full 3rd sets is a new idea, but the PNW has been using that format for USTA League and almost all tournaments for at least the past 18 years. As far as I know, that's also been the case at USTA League Nationals for at least that long as well.

I also have played tournaments in several other states around the country and this was the most common format. In fact, the only tournaments I can think of that had a full third set were National age group tournaments and a few select Open events. The last time I played an NTRP match with a full 3rd set had to be about 20 years ago.
 

Creighton

Professional
I was thinking the same thing. The OP is posting this idea like 10 point superbreakers in place of full 3rd sets is a new idea, but the PNW has been using that format for USTA League and almost all tournaments for at least the past 18 years. As far as I know, that's also been the case at USTA League Nationals for at least that long as well.

I also have played tournaments in several other states around the country and this was the most common format. In fact, the only tournaments I can think of that had a full third set were National age group tournaments and a few select Open events. The last time I played an NTRP match with a full 3rd set had to be about 20 years ago.

I know of a local area that actually voted to replace the third set tiebreak with a full third set and the district actually overruled the change.
 
Does this not take away from the fact that tennis is a physically demanding sport and taking away the 3rd set nullifies this??

I'm all for shortened matches when the moment is right (prime time hours for everyone to share the court). However, maybe keep it the way it is at the moment.... decision to play the 3rd or a 10ptTB rests with the players agreement
 
  • Like
Reactions: ktx

TennisCJC

Legend
Does this not take away from the fact that tennis is a physically demanding sport and taking away the 3rd set nullifies this??

I'm all for shortened matches when the moment is right (prime time hours for everyone to share the court). However, maybe keep it the way it is at the moment.... decision to play the 3rd or a 10ptTB rests with the players agreement

I think 2 sets and 10 point tie break allows plenty of opportunity for players who use physicality as a weapon. The ATP doubles matches use a 3rd set match tie breaker and they are playing for big money and rankings. If you aren't on the pro tour, you are an amateur athlete and we don't need to play the same format as the pros. Most amateurs (almost all amateurs) aren't as fit as pros. I like the match tie breaker in all amateur events including national tournaments.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
I know of a local area that actually voted to replace the third set tiebreak with a full third set and the district actually overruled the change.

Yes, I haven't played USTA in a few years and they did go to match tie breakers a few years ago in the southeast. I am playing Ultimate Tennis (local singles online league) and ALTA (local team doubles league in Atlanta) and they continue to use full 3rd set tie breakers. I think the reason is primarily because their are a few vocal players that think they will win more by wearing opponents down. For me, tennis will be a better amateur sport using a match tie breaker. Ultimate Tennis allows for a 7 point tie breaker if both players agree but many will not agree.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
It just makes more sense for timing reasons. Where I am now, all the tennis is indoors, so of course you get the courts for two hours flat and then you're out. Two hours could be enough for three quick sets - but if a match is close enough that it's going to a third set, good chance the sets aren't quick. I've had a 6-1 1-6 1-0 match take the full two hours.

And even outdoors, if it's at a club, there could be somebody waiting for the court after, or it could be at the end of the day and the club is closing, etc.

It feels like 90% of the time I'm playing an organized match, I can't ACTUALLY use the court for more than 2 hours. So supertiebreak it is.

There's that other 10% where technically I could. ...but at this point I'm just used to superties and so I'd play them even if technically I don't have to, if it's my choice.

I agree court time is a major problem and I've had several 2 set singles matches go over 2 hours too. I also think amateur athletes and especially older amateurs will benefit physically by playing shorter matches. I know tons of players with elbow, knee, back, shoulder and ankle injuries. Younger players may think 3 full sets gives them an advantage but these are primarily overuse injuries and younger players will get there too one day. Better to reduce use to prevent overuse injuries.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
I personally like playing tennis, and once you’ve put the effort in to set up and drive to a match, the extra 20 minutes a full set takes over ten pointer is more than worth it vs. the coin flip nature of a tie break. If I wanted less tennis, I would just not play.

Vast majority of matches that require 2 full sets and a 10 point breaker will be around 2 hours. Many will be over 2 hours. 2 hours of hard physical activity is plenty for amateur athletes. If you want to train for 2.5 or 3 hours with a like minded friend that's your choice but my opinion is for the vast majority of adult rec players 2 full sets and a 10 point breaker is physically demanding. I think leagues and tournaments should just require 10 point breakers but I would be OK if they allowed a full 3rd set in individual league matches when both players agree.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
We have a 10 pointer and I would rather a third. Anything can happen on a tiebreak. But with limited indoor courts in the winter we would time out before finishing.

Yea, a tie breaker is a bit of a shot out but I think statistically the difference between a 10 point tie break and a full 3rd set will be very small. 10 point breakers allow you get behind and still come back. 10 point breakers are roughly equivalent to 2 out of 3 games with a fair distribution of serving opportunities. I also think 10 point breakers are exciting as each point is very important.
 
Top