'23 AO Day 8 OoP & Discussion

[jazzyg]

On an earlier topic, the idea of making the winner of match tiebreaks have to win by at least 4 points is very strange.

The players had five sets to prove they were the better player (or three for the women) and couldn't do it, so the idea they need more separation in the tiebreak makes no sense. It's not like they did a random draw before the match and were sent directly to the tiebreak. They played for 3 to 4 hours and could not achieve separation. All of tennis is based on winning by 2 points, and now we're going to change it?

It's the same way I don't understand all the carping about NFL overtime during the regular season and not allowing a team a chance to tie if the other team scores a touchdown on its opening possession of OT. They had four quarters to win the game and could not do it, so now we're going to feel bad for them if their offense does not get to touch the ball because their defense failed at its job?

A change in the match tiebreak rule will never happen of course, but since it was brought up here and no one really responded, I just decided to respond.

[Owendonovan]

He's developed a bad reputation outside this forum as well. I don't gravitate towards people who are prone to outburst, public or private. Like I've said before, He certainly has the characteristics of someone raised with privilege who's parents raised talent, not a person.

[Deuce]

On an earlier topic, the idea of making the winner of match tiebreaks have to win by at least 4 points is very strange.

The players had five sets to prove they were the better player (or three for the women) and couldn't do it, so the idea they need more separation in the tiebreak makes no sense. It's not like they did a random draw before the match and were sent directly to the tiebreak. They played for 3 to 4 hours and could not achieve separation. All of tennis is based on winning by 2 points, and now we're going to change it?

It's the same way I don't understand all the carping about NFL overtime during the regular season and not allowing a team a chance to tie if the other team scores a touchdown on its opening possession of OT. They had four quarters to win the game and could not do it, so now we're going to feel bad for them if their offense does not get to touch the ball because their defense failed at its job?

A change in the match tiebreak rule will never happen of course, but since it was brought up here and no one really responded, I just decided to respond.

It actually makes perfect sense... And I believe that the manner in which Rublev won yesterday's match demonstrates that.

If the match is tied 6-6 in the fifth set, it is obviously because both parties failed to assert themselves enough to win the match. The match is therefore tied after 'regulation time' - just as in any sport which has an actual time limit.
Therefore, there needs to be a way to decide the winner - just as in other sports where the score is tied after regulation time.

I propose a 4 point difference simply because a 4 point difference will create a greater margin between the winner and the loser than will a mere 2 points.

If the match would have been decided in 'regulation time', it would have been decided by at least 2 games - we know this as fact. And each of those 2 games would have required a 2 point difference. Therefore, literally in this case, 2+2=4... a 2 point difference in each of those 2 games of difference equals a 4 point difference.
And so it makes absolutely no sense to then decide the winner and the loser of the entire match via a mere 2 point difference.

Also, prior to the new implementation of the final set tiebreak, 3 of the 4 Majors were playing out the fifth set until one player would be declared the winner by being 2 games (at least 4 points) ahead of the other player.
And so - again - to go from at least a 4 point difference to a 2 point difference in declaring the winner is to cheapen the victory.
I suggest that the ONLY reason it is done this way is for expedience - to end the match as quickly as possible, rather than as fairly and justly as possible - because every sport seems to be going in this direction, catering to the ever-decreasing attention spans of the fans (we need only look at the absurd and asinine new rules that Major League Baseball has implemented for the sole purpose of ending tie games as quickly as possible).

There is a huge difference between winning and losing a match. The winner moves on; the loser goes home. This could make an enormous difference for players for whom the prize money actually means something (the lower ranked players). And to have that decided by a mere 2 points is ludicrous. And one (or both) of those 2 points could be a lucky shot - like Rublev's net cord yesterday. Do we honestly want matches decided by one lucky net cord??! I most certainly don't.
In such a scenario, you have two players who have battled each other for hours... They both put much sweat and effort into those hours of trying to come out the winner. But, at the point where the final set was tied, no winner had been determined. To allow only a mere 2 point difference to determine the winner - after such a long and drawn out battle (as all 5 set matches inherently are) is ridiculous (as we saw yesterday). The players deserve better than that.

Yes, making it a 4 point difference in the final set tiebreak might sometimes (not always) add 10 or 20 minutes to the match, as opposed to a mere 2 point difference. But so what? It won't happen every time. And the added time will bring fitness into play even more, which will create even a greater difference between the winner and the loser, thus making the winner much more deserving of the win than a mere 2 point difference does. It just simply makes sense.

To me, the 2 point difference in a final set tiebreak to decide the winner of a match is equivalent to the stupid 3 on 3 overtime in hockey. Or the idiotic new baseball rules for extra innings (putting a free and undeserved runner on 2nd base to begin each half of every extra inning). It's all suddenly changing the rules of play.
As I said previously - if you're going to play a tiebreak where only a two point margin is required, you might as well just flip a coin or draw straws. It is that ridiculous. And how ridiculous it is was demonstrated very clearly in yesterday's Rublev - Rune match.

Saying that the 4 point difference "will never happen of course" is rather silly, given that several changes in how to decide the final set when it's tied at 6-6 have already been made recently, and they are still trying to figure out the best formula.
I will be strongly suggesting the 4 point difference to the tennis people I know - including players - to see what kind of feedback I get.

[Deuce]

He's developed a bad reputation outside this forum as well. I don't gravitate towards people who are prone to outburst, public or private. Like I've said before, He certainly has the characteristics of someone raised with privilege who's parents raised talent, not a person.

Tell me that after he's been on the tour for 5 years or so, and has matured into adulthood, and has behaved like an ass more often than not, and I likely wouldn't challenge it.
But right now, given his age and his being new to the tour - which means that all of us barely know him - I say that the criticism he is receiving is blatantly unfair.

And that the criticism is coming largely from the 'politically correct' faction that loves to tell others what terrible human beings they are for being 'intolerant' and 'judgemental' of others makes it all the worse.
To these people, it's intolerable and wholly unacceptable for anyone to criticize someone who they like - but it's entirely acceptable for them to criticize someone that they've decided they don't like.
The hypocrisy is not only blatant, it's absurd.

[Owendonovan]

Just don't talk smack about Borna.