Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[ponchi101]

For a player with a one handed BH that is indeed quite elegant, he just simply does not register in my book.
He can boycott the whole season and I won't notice.

[meganfernandez]

All Grand Slams will play a 10-point tiebreak in the final set starting with this year’s French Open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Liamvalid]

All Grand Slams will play a 10-point tiebreak in the final set starting with this year’s French Open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that at 6-6 do you know, or will it vary?

[meganfernandez]

All Grand Slams will play a 10-point tiebreak in the final set starting with this year’s French Open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that at 6-6 do you know, or will it vary?

At 6-6. Good question.



Haha on this photo selection. And the accidental decapitation crop that puts the focus on Mahut looking pissed.

[ponchi101]

Sounds like a fair solution to me.

[dmforever]

I agree that it's fair, but I have to say that I liked it when each Slam was different in that respect.

Kevin

[meganfernandez]

I agree that it's fair, but I have to say that I liked it when each Slam was different in that respect.

Kevin

I hated it! It was so arbitrary. Same sports, same scoring rules.

[Deuce]

No... it's good for the tournaments to have some individual identity. Different criteria may also mean that not always the same players are advantaged.

I don't like the new trial rule. Pointing to Isner - Mahut as a reason to alter things is foolish, because that's a once in a lifetime occurrence.
Tiebreaks are too much like shootouts in hockey and penalty kicks in soccer - it's a major deviation from the game scoring system for the sole purpose of expediency and saving time.

But if they're determined to go the tiebreak route, I would suggest a 10 point tiebreak where one must win by 4 points, and not just 2 points. This would help to minimize the element of luck, and make the winner earn and merit the victory more.

[meganfernandez]

No... it's good for the tournaments to have some individual identity. Different criteria may also mean that not always the same players are advantaged.

I don't like the new trial rule. Pointing to Isner - Mahut as a reason to alter things is foolish, because that's a once in a lifetime occurrence.
Tiebreaks are too much like shootouts in hockey and penalty kicks in soccer - it's a major deviation from the game scoring system for the sole purpose of expediency and saving time.

But if they're determined to go the tiebreak route, I would suggest a 10 point tiebreak where one must win by 4 points, and not just 2 points. This would help to minimize the element of luck, and make the winner earn and merit the victory more.

Scoring is not an identity factor. It's tied to the sport, wherever it's played. The tournaments can differentiate themselves in other ways, like surface, for starters. One scoring system per sport. I'm all for tiebreaks. Same scoring system, writ small. Only one point = a break, but also a break back.

[patrick]

I agree that it's fair, but I have to say that I liked it when each Slam was different in that respect.

Kevin

Agreed.

I like the following:
AO - 10 point TB at 6-all
FO - Win by 2 games
Wimby - Standard TB at 12-all
USO - Standard TB at 6-all

[Deuce]

No... it's good for the tournaments to have some individual identity. Different criteria may also mean that not always the same players are advantaged.

I don't like the new trial rule. Pointing to Isner - Mahut as a reason to alter things is foolish, because that's a once in a lifetime occurrence.
Tiebreaks are too much like shootouts in hockey and penalty kicks in soccer - it's a major deviation from the game scoring system for the sole purpose of expediency and saving time.

But if they're determined to go the tiebreak route, I would suggest a 10 point tiebreak where one must win by 4 points, and not just 2 points. This would help to minimize the element of luck, and make the winner earn and merit the victory more.

Scoring is not an identity factor. It's tied to the sport, wherever it's played. The tournaments can differentiate themselves in other ways, like surface, for starters. One scoring system per sport. I'm all for tiebreaks. Same scoring system, writ small. Only one point = a break, but also a break back.

Why should surfaces be different, then? Same sport, same rules completely - no?
In hockey, the surface is always the same. In soccer, American football, and baseball, there are only 2 surfaces...

I maintain that I liked the different ways that the majors handled the final set. It helped to give each a unique identity, and advantaged different players. Diversity is good.

With this 'trial' move, I have to wonder how long it will be - in this age of short attention spans - before they decide to play ONLY a tiebreak instead of the final set at all tournaments (not just at Majors). Like they do in doubles now.
Oh - and no-ad scoring, too, of course.
Hell - let's just forget the tennis altogether, and simply flip a coin to determine the winner. Players could still come out in their tennis clothing, with their racquets - to perpetuate the illusion - but a coin flip would be so much more convenient!

When the new no-ad scoring and 3rd set tiebreak came into effect for doubles (playing only a tiebreak instead of a 3rd set), I asked many of the doubles players what they thought of it. All of them said they hated it.
Gayle Bradshaw (head ATP supervisor at the time) told me that it "will be great, because it will bring in the top players like Federer and Nadal, etc. - they're going to play doubles regularly with these new rules."
He was right - the top players did play more doubles after these rules came in. But they only played more doubles for about 5 months, then stopped. It seems they were brought into doubles just to help sell/justify the new system.
Sigh...

[meganfernandez]

No... it's good for the tournaments to have some individual identity. Different criteria may also mean that not always the same players are advantaged.

I don't like the new trial rule. Pointing to Isner - Mahut as a reason to alter things is foolish, because that's a once in a lifetime occurrence.
Tiebreaks are too much like shootouts in hockey and penalty kicks in soccer - it's a major deviation from the game scoring system for the sole purpose of expediency and saving time.

But if they're determined to go the tiebreak route, I would suggest a 10 point tiebreak where one must win by 4 points, and not just 2 points. This would help to minimize the element of luck, and make the winner earn and merit the victory more.

Scoring is not an identity factor. It's tied to the sport, wherever it's played. The tournaments can differentiate themselves in other ways, like surface, for starters. One scoring system per sport. I'm all for tiebreaks. Same scoring system, writ small. Only one point = a break, but also a break back.

Why should surfaces be different, then? Same sport, same rules completely - no?
In hockey, the surface is always the same. In soccer, American football, and baseball, there are only 2 surfaces...

I maintain that I liked the different ways that the majors handled tiebreaks. It helped to give each a unique identity, and advantaged different players. Diversity is good.

With this 'trial' move, I have to wonder how long it will be - in this age of short attention spans - before they decide to play ONLY a tiebreak instead of the final set at all tournaments (not just at Majors). Like they do in doubles now.
Oh - and no-ad scoring, too, of course.
Hell - let's just forget the tennis altogether, and simply flip a coin to determine the winner. Players could still come out in their tennis clothing, with their racquets - to perpetuate the illusion - but a coin flip would be so much more convenient!

When the new no-ad scoring and 3rd set tiebreak came into effect for doubles (playing only a tiebreak instead of a 3rd set), I asked many of the doubles players what they thought of it. All of them said they hated it.
Gayle Bradshaw (head ATP supervisor at the time) told me that it "will be great, because it will bring in the top players like Federer and Nadal, etc. - they're going to play doubles regularly with these new rules."
He was right - the top players did play more doubles after these rules came in. But they only played more doubles for about 5 months, then stopped. It seems they were brought into doubles just to help sell/justify the new system.
Sigh...

Conditions like surface and indoors/outdoors can be variable. But not the scoring system, not the court dimensions - the basic, fundamental architecture of the sport should be consistent, especially among the signature events. That's how I feel. I can see how others would feel differently. Also, the slight difference caused a giant amount of confusion. I'm pragmatic and it seemed so silly, an arbitrary, easily avoidable mess that provided no value. Even some players didn't know the rule from Slam to Slam - they had to ask during the match.

I'm ambivalent to the 10-point tiebreak and no-ad in doubles, but I can see why players don't like. As a fan, I guess I prefer the breaker. There's plenty of tennis to watch.

[Deuce]

Scoring is not an identity factor. It's tied to the sport, wherever it's played. The tournaments can differentiate themselves in other ways, like surface, for starters. One scoring system per sport. I'm all for tiebreaks. Same scoring system, writ small. Only one point = a break, but also a break back.

Why should surfaces be different, then? Same sport, same rules completely - no?
In hockey, the surface is always the same. In soccer, American football, and baseball, there are only 2 surfaces...

I maintain that I liked the different ways that the majors handled tiebreaks. It helped to give each a unique identity, and advantaged different players. Diversity is good.

With this 'trial' move, I have to wonder how long it will be - in this age of short attention spans - before they decide to play ONLY a tiebreak instead of the final set at all tournaments (not just at Majors). Like they do in doubles now.
Oh - and no-ad scoring, too, of course.
Hell - let's just forget the tennis altogether, and simply flip a coin to determine the winner. Players could still come out in their tennis clothing, with their racquets - to perpetuate the illusion - but a coin flip would be so much more convenient!

When the new no-ad scoring and 3rd set tiebreak came into effect for doubles (playing only a tiebreak instead of a 3rd set), I asked many of the doubles players what they thought of it. All of them said they hated it.
Gayle Bradshaw (head ATP supervisor at the time) told me that it "will be great, because it will bring in the top players like Federer and Nadal, etc. - they're going to play doubles regularly with these new rules."
He was right - the top players did play more doubles after these rules came in. But they only played more doubles for about 5 months, then stopped. It seems they were brought into doubles just to help sell/justify the new system.
Sigh...

Conditions can surface and indoors/outdoors can be variable. But not the scoring system, not the court dimensions - the architecture of the sport. It was a tiny difference that caused a giant amount of confusion, which was my big problem with it. I'm pragmatic and it seemed so silly, providing almost no value. Even some players didn't know the rule from Slam to Slam. Seemed very silly to me for almost no value.

I'm ambivalent to the 10-point tiebreak and no-ad in doubles, but I can see why players don't like. As a fan, I guess I prefer the breaker. There's plenty of tennis to watch.

Many baseball stadiums have very different dimensions... What is a home run in one is a simply fly-out in another...
And it's wonderful.

Diversity and variety are positive elements, as they call for different strengths from the players, and reveal different weaknesses. The players who can adapt the best to the differences - be it in dimensions, scoring systems, weather, crowd noise, opponent's style, etc. are the ones who'll come out on top.
And that's how it should be.

[ponchi101]

Didn't we have last year one player that reached 7 in the tie-break at the Aussie, started celebrating her victory, only to be told it was up to 10? That was funny.
How about: you reach 6-all. You have another coin toss and the winner decides how to end it. 7 point TB, 10 point TB, or until somebody's arm falls off. At 12-all, the other player gets to decide.
(Just joking)

I know that all of these stemmed from Isner's snooze-fests at W. Yet, look at some other glorious finals that ended well past 6-6. Borg-Mac 1980 W (8-6 in the fifth), Seles-Graf RG 92(10-8), Graf-ASV RG 96 (10-8), Rafa-Roger 2008 W (9-7), Roger-Roddick 2009 W (16-14), Novax-Roger 2019 W (13-12 in super TB). We will now never see anything else like that. I wonder if we are winning or losing.

[Deuce]

Didn't we have last year one player that reached 7 in the tie-break at the Aussie, started celebrating her victory, only to be told it was up to 10? That was funny.
How about: you reach 6-all. You have another coin toss and the winner decides how to end it. 7 point TB, 10 point TB, or until somebody's arm falls off. At 12-all, the other player gets to decide.
(Just joking)

I know that all of these stemmed from Isner's snooze-fests at W. Yet, look at some other glorious finals that ended well past 6-6. Borg-Mac 1980 W (8-6 in the fifth), Seles-Graf RG 92(10-8), Graf-ASV RG 96 (10-8), Rafa-Roger 2008 W (9-7), Roger-Roddick 2009 W (16-14), Novax-Roger 2019 W (13-12 in super TB). We will now never see anything else like that. I wonder if we are winning or losing.

^ And not only did all the players involved survive those matches, but they continued to be at the top of the game - so playing beyond 6-6 had no negative effects.

Often, change is made simply so that some higher-ups can justify their jobs.

.