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

[PURETENNISsense]

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.

Yes more exciting, but also so much more stressful. Especially if I'm feeling good physically and the other guy is sucking wind.

Always enjoyed knowing they would have to come up with amazing shots while tired in the 3rd if they wanted to beat me. Never quite felt a a 10ptTB brought that to light. Just my opinion tho

 

[PURETENNISsense]

The ATP doubles matches use a 3rd set match tie breaker and they are playing for big money and rankings.

Yes but I don't think this has anything to do with physical matches but more along the lines of time and excitement for doubles.

 

[PURETENNISsense]

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.

Great point!

I've played opponents who - out of nowhere - blast 80% of first serves in and crushing fhs in the 10ptTB. But those shots were nowhere to be seen in the first 2 sets lol.

 

[ChaelAZ]

For tournaments I prefer the 3rd set personally. For league matches though, 10 point tie break works.

 

[Purestriker]

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.

I disagree. You can double fault in a point in a game of a third set and still win that game. In fact, you can do that a couple of times because you have the option to get to deuce. If you do that in a 10 point tie break and you just went down a break.

 

[TennisOTM]

If players split the first two sets, chances are those two sets were pretty long. There's an occasional quick 6-2, 2-6 or something, but for the most part, if the players are even enough to split sets, then one or both sets were 10-13 games, probably including a few very long multi-deuce games. It's the straight-set matches that tend to be short, and of course then it doesn't matter what the 3rd set format would be - the match is over either way. I've had several league matches with a straight-set win or loss and we decide to start a third set "for fun" just to use up the court reservation and/or make the trip worth it. I've never had that happen after a split-set match-tiebreak - we are usually pretty satisfied after those close ones.

 

[TennisCJC]

I disagree. You can double fault in a point in a game of a third set and still win that game. In fact, you can do that a couple of times because you have the option to get to deuce. If you do that in a 10 point tie break and you just went down a break.

You don't think you can hit 2 double faults in a 10 point breaker and still win the breaker? I think it would be easier to come back from 2 DFs in a 10 point breaker than it would be to come back from 2 DFs in a game. I do think the value of each point is magnified in a 10 point breaker but I like that aspect. It makes tennis more exciting. My key point though is time and overuse on the body. 2 full sets and a 10 point tie-breaker will be roughly 2 hours of tennis and frequently more than 2 hours. 2 grueling hours of tennis is a fair measure of tennis ability for amateur athletes. More than 2 hours turns tennis into a marathon sport and runs high risk of overuse injuries in the long term.

 

[TennisCJC]

Yes but I don't think this has anything to do with physical matches but more along the lines of time and excitement for doubles.

Agree, at ATP level they use 10 point breaker to limit time and add excitement. I think limiting time for amateurs is important too.

 

[PURETENNISsense]

Agree, at ATP level they use 10 point breaker to limit time and add excitement. I think limiting time for amateurs is important too.

I agree! Pre-kids it's always fun playing a full third.... after, haha may be harder to get away with.

 

[davidtennis123]

Absolutely hate the super tiebreaker instead of a third set. The super tiebreak is not that much longer than a regular tiebreak and so much luck can be involved.

And tennis is such a physical sport, sometimes it takes me close to two hours to wear an opponent down. Say what you want, but the super tiebreak does minimize that physical advantage that I have. My personal opinion is that players should be able to hang for three full sets.

 

[CT-Topspin]

I've played it both ways, and am fine with either to be honest. If I know there's a 3rd set tiebreak around the corner and I'm up a set, I tend to try and dial it in a bit more in the 2nd. If I know we'd go to a 3rd set, I may be a little more comfortable as I'm generally in a better condition than the opponents I play at 3.5 and am confident I can grind it out in the 3rd.

I do lean towards having a full set because it means more practice. At this point, my goal is to improve, and the results of league matches and tournaments are less significant than exposure to match situations where I can practice all of the things I need to work on.

I haven't played any fast4 or no-ad scoring games, though. I'd be interested to see how it affects my strategy. My initial impression is that it would discourage more aggressive, risky play and reward consistency. It takes me some time to dial in against pushers, and these formats may not allow for that.

 

[Harry8241]

My league gives the option- default is 10 point tie breaker which is what usually happens given the 2 hour court time wouldn’t allow a third set. My preference would be a full third, which can happen if both players agree, but the courts are always busy and the next players are waiting

 

[struggle]

Super T is already common many places (likely mnost).

 

[GummiiBear]

In my area usually time limitations (court reservations) muss up matches that have tied sets 1-1. In the past, arranging another date to play a third set has kind of felt blah.

Last night finally had the opportunity to play a full 3 sets (the facility was nice enough to let us finish, and whoever had the court next [was] moved to another). The match went 3.5 hours, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3. And I must say, afterwards my body was like, "ah yes, this is what tennis feels like".

Edit: I'm thinking solely of matches played after my return to the game after 15 years. When I was younger, never played a super tiebreak.

 

[PURETENNISsense]

I do lean towards having a full set because it means more practice.

Absolutely! Gotta love the chance to play more tennis!

 

[PK6]

With USTA they always should take priority over open courts!!! It’s only one day a week. As a whole USTA needs to be blown up!!! Play full 3 sets/ditch the 3rd tiebreaker. Eliminate the wild card and have top 2 teams go to sectionals/Give out trophies to flight/section winners. Need to treat this like ATP.

 

[nyta2]

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.

i appreciate you want wear down your opponents after 3h (ie. that's why 5set GS's are harder to win than 3set tourneys), but court time is limited unfortunately. are you matches lasting 2+ to 3h?
i like playing 3 sets when not under time pressure (eg. someone waiting for the court)... but i typically have to start at 6:30-7a on a weekend to fit that in (ie. public courts by me start getting queues by 9:30-10a). no way i could reserve 3h at my club.
side note: club is clay, public courts are old beat up hard courts (read painted cement).
regarding usta, 2h is the "norm" for court reservations (ie. clubs with lights, else sunset in the best case is ~8p (with a 6p start - our matches are typically weekdays due to private club court availability - or lack thereof on the weekends))...
when my matches have gone to 3 sets, for sure it's well over 2h.
heck i played a match that ended 7-6, 1-2, and that match took 2h (before sunset, and didn't have lights)
so how do you solve for that... unless you own a bank of private courts with lights or something?

 

[Purestriker]

You don't think you can hit 2 double faults in a 10 point breaker and still win the breaker? I think it would be easier to come back from 2 DFs in a 10 point breaker than it would be to come back from 2 DFs in a game. I do think the value of each point is magnified in a 10 point breaker but I like that aspect. It makes tennis more exciting. My key point though is time and overuse on the body. 2 full sets and a 10 point tie-breaker will be roughly 2 hours of tennis and frequently more than 2 hours. 2 grueling hours of tennis is a fair measure of tennis ability for amateur athletes. More than 2 hours turns tennis into a marathon sport and runs high risk of overuse injuries in the long term.

I have been up 7-2 in a clinching match for a state championship and lost. So yes, comebacks do happen but not often. Tie breakers are all about holding serve and making no mistakes. Most end up a push fest to see who will whiff first. I also get that time is important, for players and facilities. The pros do it after they get through a 3rd and in majors a 5th.

 

[socallefty]

so how do you solve for that... unless you own a bank of private courts with lights or something?

I belong to to a private tennis club with many courts and they allow reservation of multiple time slots. If I play during the weekday evenings or weekend afternoons like I normally do, there is no shortage of courts to have 3-4 hour matches and play full third sets.

My experience from playing super TBs is that in singles, the better player usually wins and results are not that different from playing full third sets. I have opponents that I have played regularly for years and the results of shortened matches are not that different from long matches with the guy who usually wins triumphing in both formats. For doubles, my experience is that the team with the worst player on the court invariably loses the super TB while in a longer set, he can sometimes help to win a full third set if he is paired with the strongest player. It seems like in the shortened stressful format of a super-TB, the weakest player makes enough errors and can be targeted enough to lose the TB more easily. In a full set, even if he loses his service games and many return points, his stronger partner can win most return points and his own service games and somehow pull out some wins.

 

[Moon Shooter]

Absolutely hate the super tiebreaker instead of a third set. The super tiebreak is not that much longer than a regular tiebreak and so much luck can be involved.

And tennis is such a physical sport, sometimes it takes me close to two hours to wear an opponent down. Say what you want, but the super tiebreak does minimize that physical advantage that I have. My personal opinion is that players should be able to hang for three full sets.

I’m a fifty year old guy and not in great shape. But when I can sit and get a drink for 90 seconds every change over(which I do just in case the match goes long) I am not likely to be gassed out after 3 sets. Five sets ok but three sets unless it is extreme heat or humidity it is not going to make much difference.

 

[Harry8241]

I’m a fifty year old guy and not in great shape. But when I can sit and get a drink for 90 seconds every change over(which I do just in case the match goes long) I am not likely to be gassed out after 3 sets. Five sets ok but three sets unless it is extreme heat or humidity it is not going to make much difference.

Totally agree with this - compared to the other sports I do I don’t think tennis is particularly hard work (though I never play 5 sets). The 10 point tie break third set is a necessary evil when you’re limited to a 2 hour court booking.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Totally agree with this - compared to the other sports I do I don’t think tennis is particularly hard work (though I never play 5 sets). The 10 point tie break third set is a necessary evil when you’re limited to a 2 hour court booking.

I’d agree that I don’t find the fitness aspect an issue. IT’s the wear and tear aspect that’s has me leaning towards shorter play times. Running around on asphalt for 3 hours is not what God intended for the 50+ year old body. My hearts working fine but the back and knees and feet need some healing time.

 

[TenS_Ace]

I have been up 7-2 in a clinching match for a state championship and lost. So yes, comebacks do happen but not often. Tie breakers are all about holding serve and making no mistakes. Most end up a push fest to see who will whiff first. I also get that time is important, for players and facilities. The pros do it after they get through a 3rd and in majors a 5th.

Ouch,,,,,

 

[jz000]

2 3 setters in one day? Not even ATP players do that, (except maybe Shapo, last I heard).

Yes, 3 setters are grueling. I'm 34 and have to pick my spots to go big.
Keep working on technique and reading that damn ball to get the most efficient footwork/stroke every time.
Or once you figure out your opponent's weakness, just keep exploiting it. Otherwise - power game (but still not on every shot, or you will be dead 3rd set).