Earth to tennis?

Reading through Twitter, I came across this interesting tweet from Andy Roddick, it was tweeted six days ago, before Fridays odyssey.

@andyroddick
Earth to tennis.... Please implement 5th set breaker.
Better drama. Easier to schedule for TV and game
has just become too physical.

So, is he right. To me it just sounds like something I'd expect to hear from a rank returner with an awesome serve. Its easier to win one return point and hold serve six times, then it is too win an entire return game. But that's just my opinion. Does tennis need the fifth set tie-breaker implemented across all slams? Has the game gotten too physical for 9-7 sets? Do fifth set tie-breakers really add more drama? I'm not so sure about that. I mean, how many classic five setters have ended in a tie-breaker? Thoughts?

The US Television Open was the only Major that had these final set tiebreakers, and for, as all will confirm, the network broadcasting to increase excitement for television spectators.

The four Majors are the pillar of the game, both historic and modern, post Open Era; they should be consistent, and have the same framework for winning any event, and enjoy the diversity of the differing countries, cultures and spectator crowds.

To play for two weeks, and, in the 7th and final match (in the singles anyway), and lose the final because of a double fault, one error, after spending anywhere from 2.5 hours to 5 hours, is a travesty. Sure, it makes for incredible tension, anticipation but denigrates a lot of the work, time, effort that goes into the players' actually arriving at that moment.

Singles - never a final set tiebreaker; doubles - same but if there is a time issue because of weather - then set the matches to be best of 3 sets UNTIL the QFs, and best of 5 sets from QFs onwards.

The 70-68, 5th set occurrence with Isner and Mahut was, an aberration, due in most part to having two huge servers, who's return game is lacking, relative to the strength of the respective serves.

As a last note, if a players endurance, retrieving abilities and fitness are the mainstays of their game - why then, change the parametres of what is needed to win a major tournament, when it comes to the very "end" of the final match?

Sorry, to each their own but to win a Major title, it should not come down to ONE point, a double fault, gust of wind, what-have-you....let the match play to it's conclusion without changing the "value" of the attributes that put those players into the final match in the first place.

I'm in favour of 5th set tie breakers.

When you get mammoth 5th sets before the final, it doesn't help the players and it often ruins the next match because a player is going in exhausted.

There also seems to be a conceptual flaw to me.

If a player is 2 sets to 1 or 0 up, and the next set gets to 6-6, they get the chance to win the match on tie breaker. I can't think of a compelling reason why that shouldn't be the case just because the opponent has two sets.

I would have a 5th set tie-breaker, but only at 8-8 or 9-9. It would give the match more of a chance for a breaker-less resolution, but not allow it to go on for an overly long period.

Kingraf, I would think his opinion may be more based on being an American rather than based on his style of play.

First, US Open does it, so it may be viewed as the "polite" thing to say here or else you are attacking the home Open.

Second, American TV plays a huge role in sports popularity here and it is easy to see why TV would prefer more predictable length of a match. Especially for a minor sport like tennis which cannot really hope to attract large audiences to watch say an extra hour of fifth set drama.

Wrong thread sorry ...

I personally dislike the fifth set breaker but could see an argument for it before the final. Let's face it, once you get to 6:6 in the fifth, there is some luck involved in who is the winner even if you do not play the breaker. And a very long match can make the winner unable to recover for the following round.

Definitely against the fifth set breaker in the final.

I think a tie-break, but perhaps at 12-12, (so two sets worth) and even then make it a match tie-break, to 10.

I said this also a few days back, play a champions TB with 2 clear points.
Make the women play this too.

For a short while, there was a TB at 8-8.

Docherty v Ashe

R128 Steve Docherty (AUS) N/A L 9-8, 8-9, 3-6, 7-5, 5-7

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/draws/archive/1978/MS/r1s2.html

If the women play all the slams using tie-breakers I swear Im going to call Gender Justice or something. A tier I tournament has them playing five/six matches over the course of six seven days. In a slam they are playing Seven matches over the course of two weeks. If they play under the same format, I'm sorry but theres no possible way female slams are any different from standard tournaments. Take away Serena's dominance, and the amount of first-time finalist, bear testament to this. I'm strongly against tie-break deciders

I think it should be a 5th set tiebreaker, except in the final. If it is a final you should win the final set by two games.

socal1976 wrote:I think it should be a 5th set tiebreaker, except in the final. If it is a final you should win the final set by two games.

Yeah, I am kind of leaning towards the same. Hate the fifth set breaker but when you go on and on early in the tournament, you are just killing the chance for whoever advances (and making it too easy for their opponent).

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think it should be a 5th set tiebreaker, except in the final. If it is a final you should win the final set by two games.

Yeah, I am kind of leaning towards the same. Hate the fifth set breaker but when you go on and on early in the tournament, you are just killing the chance for whoever advances (and making it too easy for their opponent).

Exactly, both guys lose that early round match and typically get rolled in the next match. But if it is the last match of the tournament you don't have this fear.

Okay, but Fridays game took 4h37, AO took 5H57, its fifth set finished in time (7-5), and it was quite obviously more physical. Why dont we limit each set to sixty minutes, or decide to have a one point shoot-out after five deuces?

This is a case of tackling the symptoms rather than the cause. The game has become far too much about physicality- JIm Courier said himself today that it is impossible to have success with high risk tennis in these times. That should be dealt with by a severe restriction on technology and a subsequent restoration of fast courts, not by slowing courts further or having a fifth set tie break, which would rob us of great tension.

Most pundits and fans seem be against 6-6 TBs at every slam. For the French Open, Wimbledon, and Australian Open, I think I would definately not like to see a 6-6 TB. I am in favour of TBs at 9-9 or 19-19 or somewhere in between.

PS If you win on a 4th set tiebreak, you have won clearly by 2 sets more than your opponent, or one cleat set PLUS a tiebreaker, so you have been the better player. In a 5th set tiebreaker a netcord can decide the match. It could be 5-6 on serve then the returner could hit a weak return that would have been put away to level the match, but get a lucky netcord and win instantly. That is kind of the problem with the TB, the worst case scenario.

For a more specific example, watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3rGPOde5Ss