Coup Droit wrote:

---

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.

---

Most of the rest of the tennis throughout the year is three sets, not five. The reduced load of that format has more players willing to be creative in their attempts to win sets rather than settle for TB and roll the two-point dice. They don't revert to type and just settle for stalemate as readily. But, yes, do I value Ivo Karlovic's TB (TB) TB matches as highly as Nishikori's scrambling, or even Dustin Brown or Monfils? No, I don't. Credit to him for keeping going at his venerable age, it's impressive. Do I watch him? No.
Did I value Sampras when he did it becasue the speed of the balls virtually dictated he had do it as it was the only real way to win at Wimbledon, though he could demonstrably do just about anything he pleased on a tennis court? No, I did not, and that Sampras-Courier final is not what I think of when I remember his career. I try to blot it out.
3 sets delivers some fine matches, but these aren't generally the ones on the mens side we remember and talk about through the ages. Those are the best of five sets, even if one sided, the Ashe-Connors, the Borg-McEnroe, Federer-Nadal. Partly that is because of the events at which that format occurs. Comparing it to the majority of the tour is largely a non-sequitur.

Mahut is not a servebot, but on that day, the match that is now the vanguard of the argument for changing the rules he mostly was. It's perhaps Isner, the common factor, can't break him for hours, opponent reverts to type. Isner not good enough to break himself, goes into his serving trance from a height of player never envisioned by the creators of the game, and no one is trying to win they're just waiting for their opponent to fail.
You've carefully selected matches across a long time period, some of them are, naturally, amongst players without big serves. Eventually one of those serves will break down. If your serve is all you have, and it's what you practice and rely on, you can effectively stalemate with it, at least for a long time - maybe, though not exactly by design, long enough, often enough, to have people talking about changing the game to your favour to prevent matches dragging on: Isner.
But, there were always long matches,  who remembers the 1953 Wimbledon men's SF between Seixas & Rose? 6-4 10-12 9-11 6-4 6-3 71 games, it took them just over 4 hours. When Laver beat Santana in the '62 QF, they played 62 games in 4 sets in under three hours. When Borg beat Gerulaitis in the '78 SF, he was at 6-6 in the fifth and both were exhausted, and Borg knew he had a relatively fresh Connors already in place if he made the final. So, he threw everything at Vitas then and there, moved outside his comfort zone, and gambled to win it. He knew he had to have enough energy to best Jimmy in the final. And, he was rewarded for that risk, breaking and closing the match in good short order from that point (8-6 the final set result), and going on to claim the title. If he's have settled, dug in, and waited, he too could have exhausted himself, and been spent in the final, and his legacy would be different, no 5 straight.
That seems the state of affairs we should be encouraging. the stakes are known in advance. We are in danger of allowing players to settle for stalemate - OK, by whatever means if you're unhappy about an over-reliance on serving shouldering the majority of the responsibility - and rather than solve the problem of how to actually beat the other player, settle for hoping that they'll beat themselves. That the fate of statistical anomaly (serve gonna break down sometime) will tick your way, even when you have made no concerted effort to decide the match yourself. Sure, everyone takes the stance receiving the serve, and ostensibly IS trying to break, but... not really. They hope for failure. The good ones, the ones that should be rewarded play every point, try plans B through Z and then go back through the alphabet again if needs be.

Brendan's point above, is also well made. The player, themselves, must make the difference. If they do not, they can hardly question the unchanging rules and format that they chose to subvert to stalemate; they had other options, uncomfortable ones to them, perhaps, but that is where the reward, and greatness lie.

indiana wrote:

---

Stircrazy wrote:

---

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.

---

Indeed, Matthew !

And we don't change because of this year, we change because we should already gave done so and this could always happen.

An over six and a half hours match which no one knew the end point, they could have still been going today. A second semi final of an 'outdoor' Slam played under the roof in great weather and incomplete, to be finished the next day, impacting on a schedule of finals.

And so easily avoided. I would have a 6-6 TB as in other sets. I am probably in a minority in that and I can go with say 12-12, just geez let us have finality rather than endlessly waiting for that break, very possibly ultimately tiredness induced as opposed to general tennis skill induced.

Such a change from Wimbledon is not going to suddenly increase the number of serve bots around even if one accepts the arguable contention that it would unfairly favour them. The courts, balls etc here and general tour have greatly reduced them and that's not going to be reversed just because Wimbledon has final set TBs. But if we do have another two contesting such a match let's just never again have this nonsense.

Liking the noises coming from such as Tim Henman. Now act, Wimbledon, for future years. Of course, leave as is and it might not happen again, at least in a generation. But once was too much and could have been avoided. Twice would be awful. 

Do it !

---

It happened TWICE yesterday!!!! As someone else noted a 16 yr old shouldn't be having to play a 4 hrs plus tennis match. I'd be ok with 12-12 too in the deciding set, but there has to be a limit. It's beyond the time for having one. There was also the 22-20 doubles match that Jay and Cam were in and last year there were a succession of men's doubles matches that went on endlessly in 5th sets for 4 hrs plus and more, and they were all far too much. It's beyond the time to change. I hope the players put pressure on AELTC to do so, since I still doubt they will make the wise decision without more pressure on them.  

Edit: All right, just checked, and there were no extreme doubles results last year, though plenty of extended 5th sets. Kubot and Melo beat Marach and Pavic 13-11 in the 5th in the final, after winning their SF 9-7 in the 5th. Marach and Pavic won their SF 17-15 in the 5th. Kubot and Melo also won their 2nd round match 11-9 and their was another 12-10. These were the longest matches. However, the large number of them validates the same point though, it would be good to know where the limit is.  

 

-- Edited by Michael D on Saturday 14th of July 2018 10:50:42 AM

indiana wrote:

---

[...]

Such a change from Wimbledon is not going to suddenly increase the number of serve bots around even if one accepts the arguable contention that it would unfairly favour them. The courts, balls etc here and general tour have greatly reduced them and that's not going to be reversed just because Wimbledon has final set TBs. But if we do have another two contesting such a match let's just never again have this nonsense.

Liking the noises coming from such as Tim Henman. Now act, Wimbledon, for future years. Of course, leave as is and it might not happen again, at least in a generation. But once was too much and could have been avoided. Twice would be awful. 

Do it !

---

Slippery slopes in sport always begin with these types of arguments: blithe statements about things that can't possibly happen, and that are blind to what has already happened.

I well remember the choruses that Test Match cricket would never be fatally undermined just because there's some flash bash crash type newcomer variant on the scene. People will always want the tactical game the sages opined, the test of character, not some quick fix. Stop being Cassandra.

Those in charge of badminton knew the same when they changed their scoring system and saw their sport suffer it's first decadal decline in half a century in terms of participation and viewership. Gymnastics and Ice Dancing similarly knew what would never happen, and have seen global participation and audiences fall after reformatting their judging systems (so that it most cases a casual observer couldn't understand them).

This is an Isner problem, and he will be the potential primary beneficiary for not having the well rounded game to compete on return games. Courts balls etc, may have reducex them, generally, but come to Wimbledon, and he, and his pretenders and successors demonstrably can profit from stalemate. He can't win these matches now, or if he does it's through attrition, and thus is too tired to progress. That's his fault. Win sooner, risk, try something different. He knows the consequence in terms of fatigue: He chooses that direction, by lack of developing a suitable alternative in his game.
Now, we will move to a situation where he knows there will be no knockout blow of fatigue, at worst 5 TB. Tiring? Yes. fatal to your progression? No. You can suffer 5 TB matches in short serve dominated rallies, and progress 7 matches. His chances of success just increased, and he still doesn't have to try to play most of the game. The lack of effort and willingness to engage the entire game is being rewarded.

Let's take the massive outlier, and accomodate our entire system to that!

OK, but we'll ignore all that to make a different point. The current proposals don't actually change anything. They pick around the edges in the hope that the problem won't represent itselves under the new system. Having, to their mind, diagnosed a problem, shouldn't the proposed solutions eliminate that problem completely?
So, again, why not have 5 TB, or 3 TB or 3 MTB. If you're going to change, don't just tinker. What if a way is found to make TB go to 150-152? What? That's preposterous? So was a game set score of 70-68 at one point. Sure, it was hypothetically possible, but it would never happen in reality. Stop being Cassandra.
Why not change completely if the concern is really to stop unending matches? Sudden death points. In a fifth, or third set, the player that has won most points in the match to tht point gets the advantage of the final deciding sudden death point in the TB or MTB if it is not decided before that. That would encourage full participation on return on every point. It also absolutely limits the maxium number of points and durartion of a match. 5 TB of maximum 13 points each.
At least have the courage of your convictions. if you believe in and are committed to the premise, then demonstrate it with assertive corrective action.

Michael D wrote:

---

You are a person of extremes ABB. My other examples show that it is not just an Isner problem. And no, we don't need to destroy the current scoring system to reach a suitable compromise on the length of the deciding set at Wimbledon! 

---

And I quoted some long distant exaplpes to show how it really isn't a problem.
And, again, just saying it isn't a problem ignores the illustrations I provided of the precedents from other sports and things where people said exactly that and then, lo and behold, oh dear! And, it's always framed in that wrapper that yourself and Indiana have agreed upon: just a reasonable common-sense compromise. Enough!

Except, it never is. And, I'd give another example here to that effect, but you'd ignore that too. Which I say without malice, and would put a but fear it would be interpreted as sarcasm. I mean, that I well understand the general dynamic wherein parties having decided upon their course, find inconvenient argument against, at this point, the overwhelming consensus, is most easily dismissed as wrong, or perhaps, tended to extremes. Then the majority can get back to discussing the actions to be taken, and congratulating themselves for the practicality and wisdom of their decisions without refuting tiresome details.

I yield.

Your point is unfair. In that it mistates the argument. It is that the proposed solution leaves open the exact propblem that it seeks to redress. If you are prepared to stop it, then stop it. At the point at which you have decided to do that, it's not unreasonable to question the entirety of the scoring system, and what will be the commercial product - that being your real agent of change, making the product palatable and commercially saleable - that will most profit all parties. I was not suggesting any scoring system that does not exist, TB, and MTB exist, and have been accepted and welcomed by most. I am merely suggesting using the devices that already are accepted to fully change the product to best fit the needs of the market.
If you're going to make a change, why not make a substantial change? Consuly all of the parties involved, see what they would best like and shake the whole thing up to best fit that landscape? Something as bold as World Team Tennis format. But, it must also categorically address the problem which people assert has been identified: matches that can go on.
None of the solutions on the table actually prevent this. A TB can go on interminably, just as readily as a set of games can. Which is to say, not very readily, they will be the distant outlier, but the consesnsus is that even a single instance is too much. I disagree, but fine. If that is the problem you are trying to solve, then TB does ot solve that, as potentially it is also unending. Yes, it reduces, on the balance of probability the occasions, but, until 70-68 no one thought that would happen - a once in a century occurrence. The 100-98 TB will hapen, perhaps, once in a century. Or, whatever your threshold to not belittle it as just extremes - reductio ad absurdam - 32-30; 25-23 whatever you think is too much. These things will still happen under the new proposal, just not often, but, as expressed by the majority, even that scarcity is intolerable. And, so, you haven't solved the problem you have identified.
So, if you're going to change it, change it. Solve the problem. You can't do that with just TB or MTB, as they are open ended - you can't just use the existing scoring structures. You have to have a guaranteed finial end point. A sudden death point. I propose a system to implement that which encourages and incentivises every point of the entire match to keep effort and excitement constant.
Why are some things sacrosanct and others extreme. If your going to change, why limit yourself? "It's about making it a structured, exciting sport that people want to watch, sponsors want to support and professionals want to play." How is 5 TB sets not that? People said 20/20 would be too short, and the drama would not have time to develop and breathe and yet it's massively the most popular and profitable part of cricket today. Players love it, they are lionised for shorter more intense efforts, they can play more often, with less fear of injury, and thus more profitably. Sponsors love it, broadcasters love the limit and the bite size chunks that they can parcel out in saleable packages, and the reliability of their scheduling.
Why can't tennis do the same. The evidence shows that the market is not so tied to the tradition of anything, in any sport, you can change it considerably, and if you keep the essence of it, the viewers will but it readily.
My suggestion was simply in that light. Othewise, you'll be continuously tinkering, tinkering, tinkering. Soon, players will say 5 sets is too long, why not address it all at once, and get it out of the way.

But, again, I understsand that no one wants to hear that. I yield.

Whichever way you cut and dice it, it's quite amusing that the scheduling of the AELTC continues to come under attack as Rafa-Djoko heads into a fifth....

6-6...
You've got to say, whatever side you're on, it would be quite funny if the guys just played a tiebreak, ignored the umpire, and the loser then shook hands....