Does the 5th Set of the Isner-Mathieu Match Make A Case for 5th set tiebreakers at Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the US Open

I normally do not introduce topics, but I have felt compelled to introduce a new one. I am a man of few words, so I will pose the question directly:

Does the match between Mathieu and Isner today make a strong argument for Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the Australian Open following the lead of the US Open and mandating that fifth set tiebreak be used to decide a match, if it is still at parity after twelve games in the 5th set?

Everyone's opinion would be welcome.

Not in my opinion, no!

The US Open, which I refer to as the US Television Open, has, for too long, catered to those watching primarily on Tv, but also courtside.

To win a singles match in a Major, and indeed the title, if it's a final - by a 5th set tiebreaker, I don't think is right. One bad point, to end a long arduous match, for one of the four titles, that are the "pillar" of the sport of tennis, I feel is not "on."

Just because we had this long match at Wimbledon with Isner prior, and now this match at RG, it becomes a talking point.

Count the number of Major singles matches that have been played, and compare that to the list of matches that went to a "longer then typcial" score in that 5th set. It's the most minute %, and because of that/those, we are going to change to a 5th set TB.

It's one of the things that I hate about the US Open, as well as Super Saturday - the four majors, as I've swaid, are the pillars of tennis; as such, there should be parity as to the length of the match needed to win the event. Each Major has it's own flavour already, it doesn't need the scoring changing.

Same for doubles, that you can win one Major 6-2, 6-2 in an hour, and another takes 3 of 5 sets, over a possible several hours - cheapens or lessens that title for me.

It's such a rare event, it's just a talking point because it's happened twice in quite a short period of time, involving the same player. Let's face it, at SW 19, both Mahut and Isner were appalling at the return game, which led to the "spectacle."

NO to 5th set tiebreakers!!

Y...86

My counter argument would be why have a tie-break in the sets 1-4 for a slam. It did not exist prior to the VASS.

The Super Saturday is a separate issue, and last several years have seen Monday finals, which hurts the TV schedule and audiences alike.

A roof discussion is also worth having vis-a-vis FO and USO.

Well not to be possessive kemet on my Isner post I raised the same issue. The happiest guy in Paris the guy who plays mathieu next. I learned something interesting from John Mcenroe, in the 70s they gave the players a chance at 15 minute break after the 3rd set. That seems to be an amazing rule that if they had today would really affect the outcome of many matches.

But back to kemet's original post yes absolutely bring 5th set tiebreaks to all the slams. Players like Isner who are huge servers and terrible returners, with Isner being the worst case scenario create these huge number of games in the 5th set. I think they should bring back 5 sets for Masters finals but play tiebreak 5th set in DC, wimby, french, and aussie. I really like the drama of tiebreaker by the way. These large number of games are not fun to watch when the service games are almost all routine until the one that finally breaks the streak. And it does to much damage and impacts the later rounds as well.

Actually it makes a case for one serve, if it means we can avoid another borefest like that

Nope I prefer the drama of the 5th set without a tie-breaker in my opinion.

Think back to that marathon 16-14 final set in the Fed-Rod final at Wimbledon in 09. Roddick had not actually dropped serve until the final game. With a tiebreak in the final set he might have lost without ever dropping serve. (OK, I know you could lose without dropping serve in a three or four-set GS match, but I think you get the point).
I don't think the other three Slams are likely to change the rules any time soon.

Yes but he only really dropped serve because he ran out of energy.
If he had a bit more stamina the match could have just kept on going.

I think Isner more than anyone else would want TB's for 5 setters. Given his amazing record on TB's

That said I think it would avoid fixture pile up which the FO has already encountered and that without any weather delays.

Also I think it should be in place for the womens too as they can over-run.

Yes but how often do we see these inordinately long matches - they are pretty rare to a point that they don't really cause too much of a disruption to schedules. A small price to pay for so much drama.

I agree with yloponom68 and CC
No to 5th set tie-breaks.

No.

Just no, ever.

No - it's not only the length of sets that it would affect, but the way in which they are played.

Now any player starting a 5th set knows he has to break his opponent, he can't just sit back, defend his serve, and go for it in a tie-break. I appreciate that can be said for any of the 1st 4 sets and that most matches are decided before a 5th set, but I like the idea that if the players get to the 5th set it's not a crap-shoot.

Another lovely little side show to no 5th set tie-break as it allows players who may not get the limelight from career title wins to make a name for themselves and gain notoriety such as Isner and Mahut now immortalised after that Wimbledon match.

Oh minions and minionettes,

I have a solution to this eternal dilemma.


It combines the best of both worlds....

Let there be a proscribed number of games to be played in the event of a fifth set after which, if the score is still even, the match can be settled with a tie break.

For example, tie break if the score reaches 10 all in the fifth.

Of course this would not be required in the final as there are no further matches to be played.

I believe this is the perfect solution. It will ensure a dramatic encounter. The player who does not want a tie break will have ample opportunity to break his opponent. It may perhaps create more urgency and attacking play.



emancipator

Not bad but still excludes the record-breaking matches like Isner-Mahut etc from ever happening again. It is fine as it is in my opinion.

No to 5th set TBs.
However...why not give them 1 serve after 6-6 in the 5th...make it more sudden death.

I'm completely against the one serve in any circumstances for the following reasons:

The second serve is a key stroke in the game. It requires a certain skill, cunning and guts to deliver a great, effective second serve. It is a part of the tennis arsenal, exposing weaknesses in players' aptitude for it and a test of their mental fortitude to be able to deliver it under pressure. It is as valid a stroke as say the FH.

Historically it is an important element of the game. Sampras (booming powerful serve) and Edberg (kick serve) have added to their legend because of their skill in delivering second serves.

It adds further tension and drama at key moments in a game.

Removing it in the fifth set at any point would change the whole dynamic of a the match. We would essentially see two types of game. The first being the game as it is currently, whilst the second part would comprise a game where the server is tentative, rolls in his serve, and gives the advantage to the returner. I'm not even sure that this would have the desired outcome (of shortening the match). We would just end up with a situation where every rally starts from a neutral perspective, leading to even longer baseline slugfests. It would also favour the more defensive players over the attackers.

Oh I think Sampras would have been happy with just one serve vs baseliners

Andy Murray would never win a 5th set, that's for sure. It would abolish the 1st, not 2nd serve and that speaks for itself.

Federer would clean up.

And I still hate the idea.

I agree with Emancipator. I don't like to see 20-20 or 30-30 sets. It's too much. I would propose a tiebreak at either 9-9, 19-19, or somewhere in between at the other three slams, with the US retaining the tiebreak at 6-6.

Yes Murray's serve is a liability.
I'm not really for single serves TBH, just an idea.
At the end of the day 18-16 scorelines in the 5th are an anomaly...but an interesting one.
We shouldnt keep making new rules to mop up anomalies.
Matches like Mahut-Isner, Isner-Mathieu make the sport an interesting, as well as unique, spectacle.
Tennis' scoring system is one of the sports USPs...we shouldnt be tinkering with it too much...otherwise its the thin end of the wedge.
Next you know sets will go to 4-4, then TB to fit TV schedules, etc.

Why not have a single set of 50 games, whoever wins the most games out of 50 wins? No TBs, no long or short sets. Leave the second serve alone for Tennis.

Table Tennis and Badminton do not have second serves. Cricket does have a No-ball.

It is wonderful to see Trainers out for both Berdych and Anderson. Anyone in favour of issuing firearms to players? It is detrimental to players health to play this. As Nadal says, professional sport is not good for anyone's health.

socal1976 wrote:Well not to be possessive kemet on my Isner post I raised the same issue. The happiest guy in Paris the guy who plays mathieu next. I learned something interesting from John Mcenroe, in the 70s they gave the players a chance at 15 minute break after the 3rd set. That seems to be an amazing rule that if they had today would really affect the outcome of many matches.

But back to kemet's original post yes absolutely bring 5th set tiebreaks to all the slams. Players like Isner who are huge servers and terrible returners, with Isner being the worst case scenario create these huge number of games in the 5th set. I think they should bring back 5 sets for Masters finals but play tiebreak 5th set in DC, wimby, french, and aussie. I really like the drama of tiebreaker by the way. These large number of games are not fun to watch when the service games are almost all routine until the one that finally breaks the streak. And it does to much damage and impacts the later rounds as well.

My apologies, Socal. I did not see the Isner post.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes but how often do we see these inordinately long matches - they are pretty rare to a point that they don't really cause too much of a disruption to schedules. A small price to pay for so much drama.

See I actually think there is more drama to a tiebreak. If you watched the Isner match there were very few service games that had drama, most of the service games, actually pretty much all but one before the last Isner service game was routine. A great deal of 40-0 and 40-15 holds. I think a good tiebreaker can be as much drama in more compressed time frame.

And the poster who noted that Isner only got broken because he got tired was very correct. If Isner was fitter he would still be serving right now in that match. All of sudden in the last 2 or 3 service games Isner's serve went from high 130s to low 120s.