I think Isner has a point, i.e. that a match as long as his is so unlikely to happen that it might seem unneccessary to change the rules, but I agree with Indy. John himself said that he'd have much rather had a shot at the title than played that historic match, and before Wimbly he was being tipped by McEnroe as the dark horse for the championship, I think sixth favourite to win it Mac said. At some point there has to be a tiebreak somewhere in order to give the potential winner a shot at actually being able to play in the next round. True, we'll miss ever having epic matches like this again, but it seems only fair. That said, the conclusion needs to be played out in some way, whether by tiebreak or in current form - there should never be an arbitrary decision by officials or a literal coin toss (I was almost afraid that Isner-Mahut would go on so long that there would come a point where officials would literally want to arbitrarily award it to one man or the other, which I felt would defeat the entire point of the match and take the outcome out of the hands of the actual players!).

Well once it had gone on really long, neither Isner nor Mahut was ever likely to have much chance of winning their next round.

People already can win 3 tiebreakers in 3 or 4 sets, so folk can win without breaking serve.

When it comes to the Grand Slams, the really good players find ways to beak your Ivos, Querreys and Isners hence there non appearance in the really late stages of such tournaments.  Unfortunately for Mahut he isn't in that top class and couldn't find a way in 69 attempts in the final set, nor in the 2 sets that preceded.

If you're good enough last set tiebreakers aren't something to be feared.

indiana wrote:

---

Unfortunately for Mahut he isn't in that top class and couldn't find a way in 69 attempts in the final set.

---

Two things. It took Isner that long as well? Clearly not Wimbledon champion class.

 

If Isner had served 69 times to stay in the match given his condition late on day two and the extra added pressure I think we would have seen a much shorter match by about 90 minutes.

indiana wrote:

---

Well once it had gone on really long, neither Isner nor Mahut was ever likely to have much chance of winning their next round.

---

You don't have any chance of winning the next round until you're good enough to win the first round. People like Isner bore the hell out of me and I'm glad he was waated in round two

Count Zero wrote:

---

Lu broke serve only once to beat A-Rod right.

i think they could intorcide a TB, but after an extended set say 10 or 12 all, then maybe play a CTB jut to make it a bit more different.

maybe mens tennisis getting too even now? these longer matches will happen.

i can see JL's point though that some of the skill is getting therough thre early rounds without expending too much energy, something Fed has been great at and murray struggled with in the past, maybe swapped this yea tho? (fed seems back on track, thanks to Boggo i think ) 



-- Edited by Count Zero on Monday 28th of June 2010 07:14:11 PM

---

Don't often argue about praise given to Boggo, but how can he lay any claim to making Fed struggle through the early matches this year?