Comments on: Why Grand Slams should never have a 5th set tie break http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/ Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:17:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dave http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-55066 Dave Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:51:17 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-55066 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 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

]]> By: Maybe Wimbledon should have a fifth set tie break | The Imagined Universe http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-36266 Maybe Wimbledon should have a fifth set tie break | The Imagined Universe Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:11:41 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-36266 [...] have gone on record in the past saying that I am glad Wimbledon has a “no 5th set tie-break” policy.  After watching the match between Frenchman [...] [...] have gone on record in the past saying that I am glad Wimbledon has a “no 5th set tie-break” policy.  After watching the match between Frenchman [...]

]]> By: Kamini http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-3061 Kamini Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:44:07 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-3061 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! 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!

]]> By: Meira http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-3060 Meira Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:47:06 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-3060 Andy still deserved to win. Sob. wait till Rafa gets better :P Andy still deserved to win. Sob. wait till Rafa gets better :P

]]> By: Amit http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-3059 Amit Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:17:31 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-3059 Lekhni, it's clear that you didn't check in with the TV execs first before writing this post. ;) :) (j/k) Lekhni, it’s clear that you didn’t check in with the TV execs first before writing this post. ;) :)
(j/k)

]]> By: Maddie http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-3058 Maddie Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:09:31 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-3058 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! 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!

]]> By: dipali http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-3057 dipali Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:17:52 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-3057 What an awesome match! Total paisa vasool:) Yes, I agree with you on the tie-breaker business. What an awesome match! Total paisa vasool:)
Yes, I agree with you on the tie-breaker business.

]]> By: kavi http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-3056 kavi Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:15:01 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-3056 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 ! :) 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 !
:)

]]> By: Rahul Jauhari http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/comment-page-1/#comment-3055 Rahul Jauhari Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:21:53 +0000 http://elekhni.com/2009/07/why-wimbledon-should-never-have-a-5th-set-tie-break/#comment-3055 Agree with you. Totally. Agree with you. Totally.

]]>