Sunday, September 4, 2011

US Open Final Set Tiebreak

For those who do not know about tennis scoring and want to, please ask. However, if you want to know why it is scored that way, call the inventor and ask him. The US Open is the only grand slam tournament that has a final set tiebreak. That is the fifth set for the guys and the third for the women. Is this fair? Well, I am undecided. However, I think it should be the same at all four slams. If any match reaches 6-6 in the decisive match, it is a mighty impressive match. It is sad that a player has to lose in that situation. But, why does the US Open have a tiebreak, and the other tournaments not? Are there no roosters in Flushing Meadows? Do people need to go home and walk their dogs? I don't understand why only this slam has a different policy. Anyway, let me explain the pros and cons of having a tiebreak final set, versus not having it. The tiebreak benefits the winner of the watch. This point is obvious. Isner and Mahut played for over 11 hours in the first round of Wimbledon last year. Isner ended up winning and got his ass kicked the next match because he was so tired. He had to play the next day, I believe. The tiebreak has a definite winner. The winner is the winner. End of story. Poor Andy Roddick in the 2009 Wimbledon final had to lose. I think it was either 17-15 or 19-17 in the fifth. Federer deserves full credit, but the tiebreak would have been less of a heartbreak for either guy. I'm sure losing a final is devastating without a doubt. Perhaps it is less so if there is no overtime. Plus if it is not a final, the winner can gather up his or her energy for the next round. Plus at the US Open there is a day session, and there is a night session. Having a day match go on forever on Ash Stadium is not fair to the night crowd of the match takes place during the day. Although, the night crowd folks as a general statement are too busy talking on their cell phones to know the difference. Alright onto the cons. On the other hand, if a player screws up the tiebreak, they have another chance. That means they are down 7-6, and can tie it at 7 to force more overtime. The crowd always wants to see more tennis. I'll watch a long drawn out match as long as there is coffee. It is overtime, like in basketball, or extra innings in baseball. However the kicker is that if there is no final set tiebreak, a player must win by two games. It is cool for the spectators to watch final sets with no tiebreaks. They could go on forever. People at the Wimbledon first round match in 2010, witnessed history. I'm referring to Isner-Mahut playing that epic match at Wimbledon. Although, that match was all serve. Boooring! What if the Nadal-Federer 08 Wimbledon final had kept going? That would have been pretty awesome. Well, back to the question of whether there should be a tiebreak at the US Open. Not, if the other slams don't have it. The fans in NYC are getting screwed on chances to witness history. Not fair. People must investigate why there is a tiebreak in the final set at the open. I think the answer may be that the players up next on the respective court can get a chance to play that day. The players who followed Isner and Mahut must have opened a cigar shop with all the time they had. I vote yes on the tiebreak in the final set. Every other sport breaks the tie. The winner doesn't have to win by two. But, it should be the rule at all four majors. The US Open should not be exclusively unique.

1 comment:

  1. Interesting posting, but I'm curious as to why you think that the rule should apply to all majors. Also, the Isner-Mahut match was highly anomalous, and I don't believe that the kind of history you've referred to is the kind that most fans really care about.

    People want to be at the matches where a young phenom upsets a seasoned favorite, or when the eventual winner breaks the record previously held for total number of majors won or most majors ever won at that specific event.