Wimbledon: Time to implement final set tie breaks?
Wimbledon: Time to implement final set tie breaks?
Wimbledon produced one of the most memorable moments in tennis history in 2010, as a first round singles match lasted 11 hours and 5 minutes. Aside from the spectacle that the match created, it raised a serious question about the rules at Wimbledon that means there is no final set tie break.
It is a rule that is consistent in three of the four Grand Slams, with only the US Open following the usual ATP protocol of allowing a final set tie break. Before the marathon match at Wimbledon between John Isner and Nicholas Mahut, debates already raged over the ruling.
There are certainly pros and cons to be weighed up, there is by no means a clear answer. Everyone has their own opinion on it, but for now at least, it doesn’t seem to be changing. It might take another epic to force the discussion back onto the table.
Argument Against Final Set Tie Break
More from Opinion
- Martina Navratilova: Money lost by coming out was in the ‘millions’
- 2024 WTA Predictions: How Iga Swiatek remains on top
- Ranking every ATP Next Gen Champion from worst to best: Is Alcaraz top?
- Jannik Sinner lets ruthless play shut Adriano Panatta’s mouth
- One former cyclist spews hate toward Novak Djokovic over false charge
A popular stance from people not wanting final set tie breaks, especially in the majors, is that it is a true test of a player’s game, both physically and mentally. Winning by two clear games gives the greater chance to the stronger player and many people feel like it is a fair finale.
They see a tie break as too random and possibly even too abrupt. For a match that could have gone five sets and lasted four hours to be halted by a tie break, for some, puts a dampener on the drama. This is especially the case when, inevitably, the crowd has hugely invested themselves into the outcome.
Argument Supporting Final Set Tie Break
There seem to be more reasons for a final set tie break, although clearly not enough to bring about a change. One of my favourite points I have heard is the impact for the rest of the event and more specifically that portion of the draw.
The Isner Mahut match lasted three days, playing havoc with their section of the draw. His second round match had to be played on the first Friday, in stead of Wednesday. In addition, Isner was so exhausted that he essentially tanked his second round match and struggled to regain form for the rest of the season.
Whether it is a spectacle or not is the main issue, as at the end of the day the entertainment value and not the players well being will drive a decision either way. Sure Isner had to show tremendous will to win, but in equal measure, for Mahut it must have been crushing like no other defeat.
In my eyes a final set tie break to decide a five set match would be the ultimate drama. The value and importance of each point would be so high, making for an unmissable climax. Sure there have been some mesmerizing matches, including Wimbledon finals, that have gone on and on, but a tie break seems like the logical way to go.
Next: No sign of Top Spin 5, where are tennis video games?
More from Lob and Smash
- Caroline Wozniacki gets her wild card for the Australian Open
- Tennis News: Rafael Nadal, Emma Raducanu and protected rankings
- Martina Navratilova: Money lost by coming out was in the ‘millions’
- Tennis News: Novak Djokovic, Nick Kyrgios and Matteo Berrettini
- Boris Becker and Rick Macci bicker over Carlos Alcaraz