Wimbledon introduces Tiebreaks in the Fifth

Zara

Hall of Fame
I support this, but would have preferred an open score in the finals. That way we still get 16-14 in 2009.
For the final, we can reserve this but for other rounds, it's not quite ideal. Not only it's such a waste of time (I frankly don't have so much time in hand to watch matches that go beyond 3.5 hours so we need to be mindful of everyone's needs as much as possible) to watch players unable to close a match but also, it diminishes the quality of the whole tournament because it's likely that the winner won't have much left in tank, if at all, for the next match.

In other words, if a SF final settles at 18-16 and the other semi settles in 3 easy sets then you can see who the winner will most likely be (goes for any round and compromises the whole tournament as part of ripple effect) in the final and that's not ideal. But if it happens in the final then we don't run the similar risk.
 
I'd be curious to know how many Wimbledon matches have gone past 24 games in the 5th set
Don't know but out of 184 matches the players with most 5th set matches played at Wimbledon 6 were past 12:12 (ie 1 out of 30 5th set matches). Ivanisevic has two such a matches (Krajicek and Norman) and Hennman (Haarhuis), Federer (Roddick), Nadal (Muller) and Cilic (Querrey) each one. Well, no more...
 
Wimbledon didn't care after the Isner/Mahut first round 70-68 fifth set. Instead of being proactive, they wait till the Anderson/Isner 26-24 fifth set, which RUINED the finals.

The age of the serve-bots are upon us. They are not going away. As Chico would say, we must "Deal with it!".
 
For the final, we can reserve this but for other rounds, it's not quite ideal. Not only it's such a waste of time (I frankly don't have so much time in hand to watch matches that go beyond 3.5 hours so we need to be mindful of everyone's needs as much as possible) to watch players unable to close a match but also, it diminishes the quality of the whole tournament because it's likely that the winner won't have much left in tank, if at all, for the next match.

In other words, if a SF final settles at 18-16 and the other semi settles in 3 easy sets then you can see who the winner will most likely be (goes for any round and compromises the whole tournament as part of ripple effect) in the final and that's not ideal. But if it happens in the final then we don't run the similar risk.
Oh I completely agree with you! That’s why I think it’s a fantastic idea, but would love it if the finals didn’t have that cap. Just the finals!
 
What's 'snobbery' got to do with it? :rolleyes:
New #108
Wimbledon didn't care after the Isner/Mahut first round 70-68 fifth set. Instead of being proactive, they wait till the Anderson/Isner 26-24 fifth set, which RUINED the finals.

The age of the serve-bots are upon us. They are not going away. As Chico would say, we must "Deal with it!".
 
Yes.

No tiebreak Bo5 is what makes every single Grand Slam match have the potential to become legendary, for their names to exceed their station.

Now that can't happen anymore at 2/4 Slams.

Good job Wimbledon, on making your tournament less special.

How I eat my strawberries?

With cyanide please.
I can see you're very passionate about this one. That being said, I have to admit I agree with you. This is rarely an issue ... another thread mentioned 10 times in the last 20 years ... so it seems silly to shorten matches at one slam due to a few exceptions. And yes, players who cannot break serve should not be given a reprieve.
 
While I sort of agree that players being exhausted is their own problem, I think we also have to be realistic for a minute here, great returners on tour are far and few.
There's a lot more players that are as skilled at returning as the Raonic, Isner, Kyrgios of this world compared to tier returners like Djokovic, Murray, Agassi and that's fine, every player has their own strength/weaknesses.

I see that decision as a way of "containing" matches should the worst case scenario happens. From a logistic standpoint, this makes a lot of sense to me. They waited a bit too long on this one IMO, should've been made after the Isner/Mahut non-sense from a few years ago.
Nitpick: Raonic was an excellent returner in his prime, a rarity for his netrusher type. Just watch some of his matches from 2016. It's what made him so dangerous and set him apart from the average grasscourter
 

Federev

Hall of Fame
At 12-12
I can see why they did it, but not a fan. But this is, at least, the best of both worlds
Should have made the men’s final an exception.

Could have gone TB on everything before the mens final and kept the Epicness.

Nothing left for the winner to recover for and in a final odds are better you’ve got more than Serve-bots.
 

Federev

Hall of Fame
At 12-12
I can see why they did it, but not a fan. But this is, at least, the best of both worlds
Should have made the men’s final an exception.

Could have gone TB on everything before Thebes final and kept the Epicness.

Nothing left for the winner of the final to recover for and in a final odds are better you’ve got more than Servebots.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Should have made the men’s final an exception.

Could have gone TB on everything before Thebes final and kept the Epicness.

Nothing left for the winner of the final to recover for and in a final odds are better you’ve got more than Servebots.
Yeah, they could've left the final alone, but then again how many finals will get to 12-12. Apart from 2009 has there ever been another?

Yet more proof that Fedr is a servebot.
 

Federev

Hall of Fame
Yeah, they could've left the final alone, but then again how many finals will get to 12-12. Apart from 2009 has there ever been another?

Yet more proof that Fedr is a servebot.
No servebot.

Yes, Fed has had a great serve. And historically - a great pretty much everything.

Thus ... greatesterer oferer allerer timerer.
 

weakera

Hall of Fame
At 12-12 they should line both players up on the baseline and fire tennis balls at them from a serve machine, both players must dodge the balls, first one to be hit or step off the line loses.
 
Does anyone know how many matches in open era have gone beyond 12-12. I bet it can't be more than 50?

Thank God for WImbledon having some sense and not being a soulless commercial sellout like USO, Wimby at least didn't do it at 6-6 or 8-8. They actually want better tennis.

This should not be allowed in the SF/Final though. A player who cannot break serve should not be allowed to win.
 
Does anyone know how many matches in open era have gone beyond 12-12. I bet it can't be more than 50?

Thank God for WImbledon having some sense and not being a soulless commercial sellout like USO, Wimby at least didn't do it at 6-6 or 8-8. They actually want better tennis.

This should not be allowed in the SF/Final though. A player who cannot break serve should not be allowed to win.
Edit: 10 matches and 0.39% in the past 20 years according to another thread.
 
I quite like it, but would prefer it if the finals was left alone.
For the final I can see no reason why they cannot at least extend it-although realistically it is not going to affect the finals-looking back at every Wimbledon final I can only see one final set that 12-12 would not suffice & that was the 2009 final, a simple extension up to 20-20 should cover that easily. After all there aren't too many servebots getting to slam finals & not against each other-the more talented player always finds a way to break.
 
I am fully in favour of fifth set tiebreaks for mens matches. There is nothing entertaining, fair or logical about having extended fifth sets. A five set men's match has plenty of ebbs and flows and a fitting conclusion to a great match is a fifth tie break (Sampras Corretja was a prime example of a great fifth set tie break conclusion to the match, there are many others, Nadal Thiem being the most recent). A fitting conclusion is not to watch a fifth set go on and on where both players increasingly conserve energy, hold serve easily and wait for the other player to get tired (in Isner's case it may take 3 days for this tedium to end). I have witnessed a number of tiresome tedious fifth set stalemates (particularly at Wimbledon, where the serve is a more dominant factor). At least a tie-break at 12-12 will eradicate the worst of these. I would prefer a tie-break at 6-6, but 12-12 is a big improvement on no tie break at all. I applaud Wimbledon for finally introducing a final set tie break.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
I think a 5th-set tiebreak at 6-6 is the better concept. Neither player was able to break or maintain the break to win the match, so it should be decided in a more-stressful/every-point-matters tiebreak...a winner-takes-all test of mental toughness.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Then Wimbledon would be admitting they were wrong all the time, whereas this way they can argue they have done their best to reconcile tradition with pragmatism.

I think a 5th-set tiebreak at 6-6 is the better concept. Neither player was able to break or maintain the break to win the match, so it should be decided in a more-stressful/every-point-matters tiebreak...a winner-takes-all test of mental toughness.
 
If you cant break the other guy, you deserve to fight it out until someone can to win the match. Final set tie breaks are for the weak and ultimately reward mediocrity.

One of the staples of slams is B05 and fight it out till the end. I thought USO had it wrong.

If a change HAD to be made, one idea I always had was having tiebreaks (whether at 12-12 or whatever) up to the final. In the final, play it out.

The idea of a final set tiebreak in a grand slam final is very unappealing to me.
 
Top