- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Thoughts on Wimbledon Tie Breaker.....
Posted on 7/15/19 at 3:38 am
Posted on 7/15/19 at 3:38 am
Yesterday, I watched the Djokovic/Federer match from beginning to end. Basically, about 5 hours.
In the end, I felt CHEATED by the new tie-breaker rule.
The new rule (just put in place this year) is that in any fifth set, the players will play until one player wins by at least two games. However, once the game gets to 12-12, then the normal tie-breaker rule apply (up to 7 points, win by 2).
This rule was put in place because some games in the past have gone really long. In particular, it took Kevin Anderson 26 games to beat John Isner (26-24) in the 2018 semifinals.
The thought was that it's unfair to the player who moves on after playing so many games. In 2018, Djokovic beat Anderson easily in 3 sets in the finals.
While I can understand the rule leading up to the finals, for the Final match, the players should go on until one players wins by two games. There are no more games to be played and no one will be disadvantaged. There could be some "rest rules," e.g., take a 15-20 minute break at 15-15, 20-20, 25-25, etc.
However, I just felt cheated watching Djokovic win the title in 5 sets on 3 tie breaker sets. And, as I recall (I could be wrong), Djokovic had the first serve in all 3 tie breakers.
In the end, I felt CHEATED by the new tie-breaker rule.
The new rule (just put in place this year) is that in any fifth set, the players will play until one player wins by at least two games. However, once the game gets to 12-12, then the normal tie-breaker rule apply (up to 7 points, win by 2).
This rule was put in place because some games in the past have gone really long. In particular, it took Kevin Anderson 26 games to beat John Isner (26-24) in the 2018 semifinals.
The thought was that it's unfair to the player who moves on after playing so many games. In 2018, Djokovic beat Anderson easily in 3 sets in the finals.
While I can understand the rule leading up to the finals, for the Final match, the players should go on until one players wins by two games. There are no more games to be played and no one will be disadvantaged. There could be some "rest rules," e.g., take a 15-20 minute break at 15-15, 20-20, 25-25, etc.
However, I just felt cheated watching Djokovic win the title in 5 sets on 3 tie breaker sets. And, as I recall (I could be wrong), Djokovic had the first serve in all 3 tie breakers.
This post was edited on 7/15/19 at 3:40 am
16
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:25 am to MMauler
Roger blew it
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:30 am to Vanilla Ice
I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with them dropping the 5th set tiebreak rule in the final as rest is no longer an issue, like you mentioned.
At the same time, I think it worked just fine as it was. Each player had more than enough chances.
I'm impartial either way.
At the same time, I think it worked just fine as it was. Each player had more than enough chances.
I'm impartial either way.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 4:35 am to MMauler
I thought it was a absolutely terrible way to end that epic final.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 5:21 am to MMauler
quote:
And, as I recall (I could be wrong), Djokovic had the first serve in all 3 tie breakers
That's not an advantage imo
Posted on 7/15/19 at 5:21 am to MMauler
I watched the 70-68 Isner match... It was a fricking joke
Posted on 7/15/19 at 5:24 am to MMauler
They played for five hours. That’s more than enough time. At some point players hit a point of diminishing returns and they’re just trying to outlast one another. As a casual fan, I was happy there was an end point. Feds was up 40-15 and couldn’t close!
Posted on 7/15/19 at 6:43 am to MMauler
You felt cheated after 5.5 hrs? It was long.. too long.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 7:24 am to oleyeller
Djokovic did not have the first serve in all three tiebreakers.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 7:27 am to MMauler
No matter what they do, someone will start a thread just like this one to bitch about it the first time it comes into play.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 7:33 am to MMauler
Announcers kept justifying it by talking about it’s unfair to players that win and have to play the next day or that it screws up the schedule.
It was so frustrating because obviously that doesn’t apply to the final and it’s very easy to make the rule “except for the final”
It was so frustrating because obviously that doesn’t apply to the final and it’s very easy to make the rule “except for the final”
Posted on 7/15/19 at 7:34 am to MMauler
Definitely felt cheated, but probably more so because I found myself rooting for Federer. However, as others have pointed out, he had his chances and simply couldn't put Djokivic away. I was zoned in and looking forward to an all timer, unaware of the newly implemented tiebreaker rule.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 7:38 am to Weagle25
quote:why should a final have different rules than every other match?
It was so frustrating because obviously that doesn’t apply to the final and it’s very easy to make the rule “except for the final”
Posted on 7/15/19 at 7:41 am to Cannon
quote:
I was zoned in and looking forward to an all timer, unaware of the newly implemented tiebreaker rule.
I didnt know about the rule until it was 12-12 but the match was still an all timer
5th set tiebreaker at wimbledon
old GOAT vs new GOAT (passing of the torch)
2 championship points held off
one of the best Wimbledon finals ever
This post was edited on 7/15/19 at 7:42 am
Posted on 7/15/19 at 7:42 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
why should a final have different rules than every other match?
Because the reason the rule was put in place isn’t an issue in the final.
Why is there a different rule in the 5th set than the other 4?
Posted on 7/15/19 at 8:34 am to Weagle25
quote:
Why is there a different rule in the 5th set than the other 4?
I would agree with this, if anything.
I don't have an issue with the rule change or how it ended.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 8:51 am to MMauler
Idk how anyone could watch that match and feel cheated after.
I like the rule, they played for 5 hours. Federer had his chances and simply didn't take them. As a match like that progresses the quality of tennis goes down as the players get exhausted and they're just trying to outlast each other.
It's a good rule imo, even in the final.
I like the rule, they played for 5 hours. Federer had his chances and simply didn't take them. As a match like that progresses the quality of tennis goes down as the players get exhausted and they're just trying to outlast each other.
It's a good rule imo, even in the final.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 9:13 am to MMauler
I would of been happy with a 5 set tie breaker. It was impelling tennis for sure.
Posted on 7/15/19 at 9:31 am to VernonPLSUfan
I disagree with op. Rule was needed
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News