an alternative to the scourge of "tie breaking" protocols

Bet10Heinekens · 06-13-13, 04:02 PM

I would love to see a super tiebreaker for the grand slams in the 5 set..1st player to 30 points(6 games x 5 sets)

fitguy67 · 06-13-13, 04:20 PM

my way gets to keep the magical psychological-torture of scoring within games (15, 30, 40...gotta win by two="deuce/ad")...this is wonderful...throw in the "gotta win by two" games as well and u got more magic...

what's gotta be dumped is the "set" concept...replace it with one super-sized "set"=match=first to, say 11 games, with that wonderful "gotta win by two"...and never deviating from the wonderful psychologically-demanding game-scoring protocol (15, 30, 40...deuce/ad) that's unique to tennis

winner would be decided with "game...and match"...ta-dah!...sets are unnecessary...

Hardcoar · 06-13-13, 04:34 PM

The only actual difference between a game and a tiebreak (apart from the tiebreak being first to seven rather than first to four points) as such is that a game enjoys a single server on a single side of the court.

samus82 · 06-13-13, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Hardcoar

The only actual difference between a game and a tiebreak (apart from the tiebreak being first to seven rather than first to four points) as such is that a game enjoys a single server on a single side of the court.

Errm well they also change service after the first point and then every 2 points

Hardcoar · 06-13-13, 05:29 PM

They do. Read my post again please.

samus82 · 06-13-13, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Hardcoar

They do. Read my post again please.

Well your post doesn't really explain the difference between a normal game and a tiebreak, I certainly would not say that is the only difference, there is more to it.

fitguy67 · 06-13-13, 05:59 PM

before the tie-break...players would have to continue playing games until the psychologically-/physically-demanding"gotta win by 2 two games " condition was met...exactly as they now do in the 5th set at the French...no tie-break bullshit allowed in the fifth at the French (and some/all of the other majors...?)

unitl the tie-break came along every set was like th 5th still is at RG...some matches would last goddam 5-6 hours (9-7, 6-8, 11-13, 6-4,10-8 type stuff )...look at some old Rod Laver/Kenny Rosewall scorelines at majors...this was just too much...for the players and the fans...

so the tie-break (game to 7, gwb2 points="gotta win by 2" points) was created cuz in multi-set matches sometimes more than one of 'em needed a draining marathon

Now, this creation is clearly NOT replacing A GAME...it is replacing the gwb2games-requirement...a foundation of tennis scoring...the winner of the TB is in essence being given the nod that by winning this SINGLE hybrid-serving/race-to-seven/gwb2pts "game"...it somehow replaces the need to accomplish the much-more-difficult feat of winning TWO CONSECUTIVE "REAL" TENNIS GAMES (ONE OF THEM NEEDING TO BE A BREAK)

The problem, Virginia, is not in the "game"...it is with the "set"...

all tennis should be composed of REAL TENNIS GAMES with REAL TENNIS SCORING...and maintain the all-important GWB2 PRINCIPLE (both for games=gwb2 points)...AND for THE MATCH (gwb2 full tennis games)...

dump the "sets"...replace it with one "super-set"sized MATCH (with threshold at, say 11 for a std tourney,,,and beef it up to, say 17 for a major...junior-level tourneys can be set at a 7- or 9-set "gotta win by two game" single-super-set matches...)

___________

and voila...matches with decisive 2-game-margin finishes while playing REAL TENNIS GAMES with REAL TENNIS SCORING (including the "who" and "where" specifics of each point's service) throughout the entire TENNIS MATCH (with no need to resort to a corner-cutting protocol NOT-fully compliant with TENNIS SCORING)

__________
*A TENNIS MATCH SHOULD BE = ONE SUPER-SIZED "GOTTA WIN BY TWO GAMES" SET...WITH EACH AND EVERY GAME A STANDARD-DEFINITION TENNIS GAME (ie. a ONE-SERVER-THROUGHOUT RACE TO FOUR BUT "GOTTA WIN BY TWO POINTS"...)

Dump the sets...then you dump the need for the corner-cutting non-tennis "games"...

no sets in need of "decision"= just ONE "gotta win by two real tennis games" MATCH...that the players resolve themselves...by--heavens-forbid--continuing to play REAL tennis games until one player has won the match decisively.

Pinocchio · 06-13-13, 09:06 PM

Dump the second serve and none of this is necessary. You get one serve only.

Hardcoar · 06-14-13, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by samus82

Well your post doesn't really explain the difference between a normal game and a tiebreak, I certainly would not say that is the only difference, there is more to it.

What difference is there apart from the tiebreak being first to seven and including the switching of sides as well as serves in a specific pattern?

"The only actual difference between a game and a tiebreak (apart from the tiebreak being first to seven rather than first to four points) as such is that a game enjoys a single server on a single side of the court."

fitguy67 · 06-14-13, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Hardcoar

What difference is there apart from the tiebreak being first to seven and including the switching of sides as well as serves in a specific pattern?

1. Yes, you are right. The tiebreak "game" IN AND OF ITSELF really is just a longer (race to 7,gwb2pts vs the std race to 4,gwb2pts) with a hybrid serving pattern....

but at the same time...

2. You are wrong...because the TB "game" IN THE CONTEXT OF A TENNIS MATCH does not simply replace a single REAL tennis game...what it replaces is...the need to win by two REAL tennis games...

to understand this, u need to keep in mind one key fact: before the tiebreak, ALL sets were just like the 5th set at RG now...read that again before continuing...if you don't believe me go back and look at tennis scores from the 1960s and before...they were like this...6-4, 8-10, 3-6, 7-5, 11-9...look closely at the second set, which whas obviously 6-6 at some point...and someone won the 13th game...(which is what u say is all a tiebreak does, right?...) but traditionally, until the goddam TB came along ALL sets had the gwb2games requirment...just like the 5th set at RG still is...

The TB is clearly NOT replacing A GAME...it is replacing a much more complex entity: the "gotta win by two games" requirement...a foundation of tennis scoring...the winner of the TB is in essence being given a "cheapened path to victory" in that by winning this SINGLE hybrid-serving/race-to-seven/gwb2pts "concoction"...it somehow replaces the need to accomplish the much-more-difficult feat of winning TWO CONSECUTIVE "REAL" TENNIS GAMES (ONE OF THEM NEEDING TO BE A BREAK!!!)

if you implement my MATCH EQUALS A "BEST OF ONE" SUPER-SIZED SET(S) approach...you'd run into the GWB2games requirement only ONE TIME...and it's exciting as hell (tell me you don't like watching a 5th at RG!)...and you are using tennis games to decide a tennis match...not some contrived corner-cutting protocol "hybrid" game

sounds weird i know, but this was how all sets were decided until just a few decades ago...
problem was the multi-set concept meant u might need many marathon endings...that's where my idea comes in...go to a single super set...and you got exciting, decisive tennis matches being decided by actual tennis games again...with the possibility of mega-grueling/mega-memorable ending

N.C. (NUFF CED)

samus82 · 06-14-13, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Hardcoar

What difference is there apart from the tiebreak being first to seven and including the switching of sides as well as serves in a specific pattern?

"The only actual difference between a game and a tiebreak (apart from the tiebreak being first to seven rather than first to four points) as such is that a game enjoys a single server on a single side of the court."

Well for one thing, a tie-break gives a player a set amount of serves. 1 serve to start then alternating every 2 points, regardless of the result of those points. Whereas in a game, you are not limited with the number of serves you have, the server makes as many serves as needed to conclude the game, sometimes they will only need 4 serves and hold to love, other times they will need to use more serves if they lose points in the game.

My point is what you said is not the only difference.

Hardcoar · 06-14-13, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by samus82

Well for one thing, a tie-break gives a player a set amount of serves. 1 serve to start then alternating every 2 points, regardless of the result of those points. Whereas in a game, you are not limited with the number of serves you have, the server makes as many serves as needed to conclude the game, sometimes they will only need 4 serves and hold to love, other times they will need to use more serves if they lose points in the game.

My point is what you said is not the only difference.

"... a game enjoys a single server on a single side of the court."

samus82 · 06-14-13, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Hardcoar

"... a game enjoys a single server on a single side of the court."

Exactly, you haven't taken into account the way the point system works or the number of serves in a game compared to a tie-break. You've tried to oversimplify but missed key points.

Hardcoar · 06-14-13, 09:59 AM

I believe I have. I just summarized it instead of writing three paragraphs. What I wrote doesn't in any way exclude those differences. It simply does not state them explicitly.

At any rate I agree those are part of what differentiates a tiebreak from a game.

EaglesPhan36 · 06-14-13, 10:10 AM

I don't have a problem with the normal tie breaker set-up. I think they should use it in the 5th set at Slams like the US Open does. I think making the 5th set TB at Slams similar to the doubles super breaker where they go to 11 instead of 7 would add some excitement.

The eternal 5th sets at the other Slams are silly IMO and outdated. It absolutely kills some very deserving players from being competitive for the next round.

ohumad · 06-14-13, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by EaglesPhan36

I don't have a problem with the normal tie breaker set-up. I think they should use it in the 5th set at Slams like the US Open does. I think making the 5th set TB at Slams similar to the doubles super breaker where they go to 11 instead of 7 would add some excitement.

The eternal 5th sets at the other Slams are silly IMO and outdated. It absolutely kills some very deserving players from being competitive for the next round.

Yes good points! A longer tie-break seems like a good alternative.

Hardcoar · 06-14-13, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by EaglesPhan36

I don't have a problem with the normal tie breaker set-up. I think they should use it in the 5th set at Slams like the US Open does. I think making the 5th set TB at Slams similar to the doubles super breaker where they go to 11 instead of 7 would add some excitement.

The eternal 5th sets at the other Slams are silly IMO and outdated. It absolutely kills some very deserving players from being competitive for the next round.

Especially in modern times now that the game is considerably more physical than a couple of decades ago.

EaglesPhan36 · 06-14-13, 02:29 PM

Yeah it just seems to be a real disadvantage for anyone who wins that sort of match. Unlikely the other Slams will change their 5th set format until one of the big boys wins in that fashion and then gets destroyed in their next match.