Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think 5 sets is too long. I love watching but can't devote 5 or 6 hours to watch a sporting event. That said it feel the lady's 3 setters are too short, especially if it only goes to 2.
Maybe first to 3 but if it goes to 2-2 then play a 10 pt tiebreaker. Require M and W to do the same since they are earning the same money.
Like I said earlier, the thing that drags tennis matches on for too long is due to the AD score system where it requires a player to have two points above their opponent in order earn a game point. Doubles matches don't have that, so if the score is 40-40, it's sudden death and the next one to score earns the game point. Even 3 set matches can last well over three hours due to the AD scoring because some games last way too long because takes forever for a player to score again when they have the AD point. And this is especially true when two players are at similar levels.
Like I said earlier, the thing that drags tennis matches on for too long is due to the AD score system where it requires a player to have two points above their opponent in order earn a game point. Doubles matches don't have that, so if the score is 40-40, it's sudden death and the next one to score earns the game point. Even 3 set matches can last well over three hours due to the AD scoring because some games last way too long because takes forever for a player to score again when they have the AD point. And this is especially true when two players are at similar levels.
But don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that you need to have two points above your opponent to win the set. I think that's a fair rule since it requires a player to win a break point in order to win a set. So I understand the concept behind that. But this AD scoring just makes no sense and just drags on games to a point where sometimes I feel like it's never going to end.
But sometimes I think they make these silly rules on purpose so it does drag on games and build up suspense. Like in baseball, a foul hit is considered a strike except when it's your third strike. So sometimes in baseball, when a batter has 3 balls and 2 strikes, the game drags on when the batter is constantly hitting foul balls. It's like, come on, can this end already?? And is basketball when there's 10 seconds on the clock left, those 10 seconds take forever because players foul on purpose to stop the clock. Very annoying!
That sounds like a great idea, a Super Tiebreak after 4 sets.
This is similar to what they did in Doubles on the main tour, to make it more interesting and watchable again.
Tennis is a very traditional game, but changes need to be made to get new fans involved.
So if its bigger than ever in the US, then its on the right track, and by eliminating the 5th Set you'll definitely lose a lot of tennis fans who will see the sport become much weaker and less athletic as a result.
The players with poor stamina would suddenly start beating the Nadal or Djokovic level players.
So if its bigger than ever in the US, then its on the right track, and by eliminating the 5th Set you'll definitely lose a lot of tennis fans who will see the sport become much weaker and less athletic as a result.
The players with poor stamina would suddenly start beating the Nadal or Djokovic level players.
The 5th set is only in the majors and only for the men. The rest of the time it is best of 3.
The 5th set is only in the majors and only for the men. The rest of the time it is best of 3.
Yeah I know, I've been following tennis since the 80s.
If they do shorten the format of slam matches, whoever wins 20 or 25 slams in future won't actually be taken seriously anyway, because there will always the argument "Nadal-Djokovic-Federer won their slams with best-of-5-sets, so you'll never be as great as them...."
So if its bigger than ever in the US, then its on the right track, and by eliminating the 5th Set you'll definitely lose a lot of tennis fans who will see the sport become much weaker and less athletic as a result.
The players with poor stamina would suddenly start beating the Nadal or Djokovic level players.
It’s a tough gig.
But as we saw from that 26-24 Wimbledon semifinal, between Isner and Anderson, sometimes change is needed. (Wimbledon changed the 5th set rules after that)
Djokovic obviously benefited in the final that year, as the other semifinalist was too spent for the final.
A Super Tiebreaker in the 5th set seems like a good compromise.
Fans still want to see players playing their best tennis, with some stamina and “war of attrition “ involved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
