I just finished watching Roger Federer defeat Andy Roddick. Definitely one of the greatest tennis matches ever played, at very many levels. I thought Andy played better for most of the match, and until the last game, he was the only one to have held his serve every time.
But if anything, I am very glad Wimbledon has a “no tie breaker in the 5th set” rule. In fact, this match shows why no Grand Slam tennis tournament should ever have a 5th set tie-break. It would have been very unfair if Roger had won the 5th set also on a tie-break, without breaking Andy’s serve even once.
Odis Sorel
Savvy Aggarwal
Maria
Arindom Borah
Patrix
Agree with you. Totally.
I agree and disagree with everyone. The problem is that we have two serves in the new power racket era. There should only be one serve. It would get rid of “holding serve”. You would have to spin your old second serve in making even chances for both sides. It would get rid of inferior players who are superior servers winning matches because they get too many cheap points on serve and also are able to erase hard earned break points. Unfortunately Sampras would be a nobody and Federer would of only won 5 or 6 slams (but Federer would still be the best ever with Laver). Agassi was better but if he can’t break the guy he’s going to lose while Sampras could relax and swing away on his return knowing that he can easily hold serve.
Anyway 70 to 68 Isner match would of never happened because they both would have to rally and would not be able to easily defend their serves with so many cheap points.
Players don’t serve and volley anymore because either their serve is a winner or if the opponent has a decent play on the ball will likely hit a very difficult power spin return that would be difficult to volley.
Another wonderful side benefit would be that it saves time wasted after a fault.
Get rid of the over weighted serve stroke that the opponent cannot do anything about and emphasis on holding serve.
Right now we need the tie breaker. But get rid of the easy hold and you could get rid of it.
So there that is the answer. Ok a little arrogant sounding sorry.
Dave
Agree Agree. and ofcourse, there are those that paid a grand centre court ticket to get a 5 set fare. And got 2 more sets for free !!
Talk of freebies !
What an awesome match! Total paisa vasool:)
Yes, I agree with you on the tie-breaker business.
I totally agree with you. In fact, I think there should never be tiebreaks in the in between sets as well. But then that would make the matches too lengthy and don’t know whether they would ever get over!
Lekhni, it’s clear that you didn’t check in with the TV execs first before writing this post.
(j/k)
Andy still deserved to win. Sob. wait till Rafa gets better
As a die-hard Federer fan, I’m thrilled that he won. Yes, that last set was a nail-biter. It was one of those matches where one truly felt that there was no “loser”.
If only he had not worn that idiotic blazer with the 15 emblazoned on it!