Weeks 27 & 28 - The Championships, Wimbledon - men's singles (grass)

indiana · Tennis legend

Weeks 27 & 28 - The Championships, Wimbledon - men's singles (grass)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
Isner has just withdrawn from Newport, I believe...,,
Anderson I guess will try to play a match on Sunday ...

Yes. I hope he's fine and it's great but the AELTC run a real risk that the final will be a damp squib. And the sponsors etc will not be pleased. Unless they'd rather watch the football anyway and will be dead glad it's over quickly.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

indiana wrote:
And as has often been pointed out a big server, or anyone else, can already go through winning 3 TBs in 3 or 4 sets without breaking.

Which puts the agency on the other player to find ways to ensure that you don't get in to that situation.
Which, they then do by concentrating on every aspect of the game and being able to create breaks from meagre scraps.
Which those other players do very successfully, because, since the change after the Sampras-Courier borefest, very few Slams have been won by the pure big servers, the likes of, to varying degree: Raonic, Isner, Karlovic etc
The Slams are won by players that can play, all over the court, every shot; every tool for every occasion.

But, again, they will change it, and yes, it will be sold as an improvement because poor players shouldn't have to go though 6½ hour matches, should they? Of course, if they could just play the whole game of tennis, they don't need to. The exceptions are not the rule. But, it will assuredly fall victim to commercial pressures.

flamingowings · All-time great

Both Anderson (in his immediate post match interview) and now Isner want a change in the 5th set.
Christopher Clarey

Verified account

@christophclarey
Follow Follow @christophclarey
More
No better man than John Isner to speak to the no tiebreak rule in the 5th set. Here's what he just said to a group of sports writers: "I can't say enough. I do think the rule needs to change and maybe you guys would agree as well."

1:20 PM - 13 Jul 2018 from London, England

indiana · Tennis legend

AliBlahBlah wrote:
indiana wrote:
And as has often been pointed out a big server, or anyone else, can already go through winning 3 TBs in 3 or 4 sets without breaking.
Which puts the agency on the other player to find ways to ensure that you don't get in to that situation.
Which, they then do by concentrating on every aspect of the game and being able to create breaks from meagre scraps.
Which those other players do very successfully, because, since the change after the Sampras-Courier borefest, very few Slams have been won by the pure big servers, the likes of, to varying degree: Raonic, Isner, Karlovic etc
The Slams are won by players that can play, all over the court, every shot; every tool for every occasion.
But, again, they will change it, and yes, it will be sold as an improvement because poor players shouldn't have to go though 6½ hour matches, should they? Of course, if they could just play the whole game of tennis, they don't need to. The exceptions are not the rule. But, it will assuredly fall victim to commercial pressures.

And similarly in a final set if they knew that there was a TB in that too.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

indiana wrote:
AliBlahBlah wrote:
indiana wrote:
And as has often been pointed out a big server, or anyone else, can already go through winning 3 TBs in 3 or 4 sets without breaking.
Which puts the agency on the other player to find ways to ensure that you don't get in to that situation.
Which, they then do by concentrating on every aspect of the game and being able to create breaks from meagre scraps.[...]
And similarly in a final set if they knew that there was a TB in that too.

Which then means that the agency is never on the big server to change, but always on the other player.
The incentive to just be a big server, and accept the ready advantage it offers is then written into the game, an incresingly irresistible option. Over a generation, that would, will, does, has, reduced the game, as it has other sports (eg the issue in golf with unwillingness to regulate material and equipment developments).
The big server always has the advantage, and is never forced, or even encouraged, to play the whole of the game. to adapt their game,; just keep banging them down. Quite the contrary, the game is shifted because of them, and to their advantage!

JonH · All-time great

Well, I found Anderson and Isner fascinating, not amazing tennis but amazing effort and strength.

But djokovic and Nadal just now was class, pure quality. Nadal ws stunningly good and yet djoko is 2-1 up. Fabulous.

Jaffa · Challenger level

My two cents is to do a MTB at 12-12.

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

The first three paragraphs of Matthew Syed's column in today's Times under the heading, "Anderson-Isner marathon highlights need for tie-break in final set":

The guts and determination of two remarkable sportsmen yesterday were betrayed by a scoring system that has surely outlived its usefulness. John Isner and Kevin Anderson battled on Centre Court for point after point, game after game, breaking records, breaking schedules, but ultimately, exhausting the patience, if not of the Centre Court crowd, then of many watching on TV.

I love the five-set format. I love the epic nature of these long-form tussles. But tension is not an inexhaustible resource. Even Alfred Hitchc0ck would have struggled to hold the attention of his audience if Psycho had gone on and on, a six-hour marathon that didnt show any sign of finishing even after the sun went down, the shadows lengthened, and Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, waiting in the wings, had a bit of kip.

Wimbledon must surely introduce a tie-break in the final set, if not at 6-6, then at 10-10, or 12-12, or, hell, even 20-20. There has to be some sense of finality, some definite end point, when you have two big servers going head to head.

And towards the end:

Twitter was awash with gallows humour. Jack Whitehall, the comedian, weighed in with: "This umpire in the Isner Anderson game had black hair when it started." Another said: "The year is 2050. John Isner is through to his first grand-slam final after beating Kevin Anderson 13,960-13,958 in the final set."

My personal favourite was: "I just realized - Isner and Anderson know they can't beat Djoker and Nadal in the final, so they're doing a filibuster."

Followed by a plea:

And yet: can we please change this system? The US Open has a tie-break in the deciding set, but has lost none of its capacity for drama and, indeed, for epic contests. Indeed, you might argue that the drama is heightened in the fifth set by the looming awareness of an immovable denouement. It gives the protagonists, the spectators, the schedulers, and everyone else, not least the players on next, a focal point, a cliff edge, a precipice.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Jaffa wrote:
My two cents is to do a MTB at 12-12.

That is my line of thinking too. A TB 6-6 would be too soon for my likes. I love the drama of a last set, and shooting it out with a normal TB at 6-6 doesn't seem fair.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Very well written, Syed, and exactly my sentiments (in a far more eloquent way).

And there are other consequences too - thanks to the ridiculously long match yesterday, not only is there the potential for the men's final to be diminished, but the women's doubles final now is TBA, very likely to be bumped down to Court 1, as opposed to Centre Court, where it was scheduled previously when the original OoP was issued. Which makes perfect sense, given what they've got to balance and schedule but leaves the AELTC open to allegations of sexism etc.

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

To me, Syed, misses the point in lionising 'two big servers going head to head." - they are not trying to win the match. They are concentrating on one shot of their own, and a few sundry asides, and hoping that their opponent will fail, will fall over, and that they can then win, almost by default. Yes, filibustering is close.
OK, so you draw the line at say 20-20. Then that happens often enoughthat calls for change again go up. And, given the length that such matches take, 'often enough' is not very often, this plea today is predicated essentially on the precedent of just two matches: yesterdays and Mahut-Isner. So, then, 20-20, becomes too much, 15-15. Not 15-15, too much 10-10... the slippery slope that leads us to ever down. Of course all sold each time under the sleight of just being a reasonable compromise.
If what you want is the US Open - Syed uses one of his favourite, centuries old, rhetorical tricks here, "Indeed, you might argue that the drama is heightened in the fifth set by the looming awareness of an immovable denouement." Yes, one might. They might equally and justifiably argue the complete opposite, too; that it is the tennis equivalent of playing for penalties.
If what you want is guaranteed drama of the format, then you can contrive that. I have witnessed countless execrable FIFA World Cup matches over the years sanctified by the tacking on to the end of 120 stultifying minutes of a penalty shoot out, and all and sundry then calling them great games and amazing drama - often rewarding a cyincal teams playing only for the penalty shootout with not just progression in the tournament, but as equal actors in that great drama becasue they played equal part in the only part that is remembered as having mattered, the 3 minute duration of the circa 10 kicks that decided the shootout.
20/20 cricket is beloved more than tests or one day internationals now (to the global audience) because it reduces the game to every ball being an 'event', an atttempt to hit a six regardless the quality of the delivery.
Tennis can go this route too. It can reward the big servers, for being ever taller, stronger and big of serve, for barely registering attempts to play the opponents big serve, and waiting, hoping for their opponent to break down, rather than continuously trying to make that happen themselves. Reward them for not playing the whole game. Have your drama. If you're going to do that, get straight to the point though. I genuinely don't understand why you don't just say 3 MTB sets is the new format in that case. First to 10, two clear points to win. You're guaranteed 20 points, likely to get 30-40, might get 60. Less time pressure on the players to get through the matches means the ancillary bonus that the likes of Rafa & Nole can take as long as they like between points to adjust their shorts and/or bounce the ball!

But, again, it will change, and, again, the big servers will ultimately being rewarded for the limits of their game.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Helen40 wrote:
Jaffa wrote:
My two cents is to do a MTB at 12-12.
That is my line of thinking too. A TB 6-6 would be too soon for my likes. I love the drama of a last set, and shooting it out with a normal TB at 6-6 doesn't seem fair.

Actually after reading SC's post, maybe a MTB at 18-18 in the rounds up until QF, then MTB at 12-12 in the semi (so that there can't be this sort of impact on the women's finals), or even something like MTB after two hours in the last set up in the SF. I would like there to be no limit in the final.

flamingowings · All-time great

Not just the women's doubles final tba but very unfair for the women's singles final as well.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Not trying to be 'funny' but from your assessment, AliB, does that mean that you don't like/value any of the other tennis throughout the year? Practically all tennis has a TB for the final set. Do you feel that all the other tennis fails to deliver?
And I don't think it is purely aimed at huge servers, or rewarding them their limits. Jack Draper and the Colombian lad, for goodness sake, went to 19-17 and I don't think you could put them up in the John Isner ranks. Even Mahut is not, for me, a servebot.
Santoro and Clement hold the record for the longest match in the French Open (16-14) and they both had pretty noddy/doddy/shoddy serves.
The Davis Cup record I think is still Souza and Mayer and they're not servebots either.
Any two players, who are pretty even, can end up in a huge long match.