- Mutua Madrid Open Schedule and Draws for Saturday, April 27, 2024
- Tennis Balls Favorite Photographer and Producer Rob Stone Premieres THE Blue Angels IMAX Film!
- Mutua Madrid Open Schedule and Draws for Friday, April 26, 2024
- It’s a Girl! Belinda Bencic Welcomes Daughter to the World
- Nadal kicks off Mutua Madrid Open campaign with easy win over Blanch
- Mutua Madrid Open Schedule and Draws for Thursday, April 25, 2024
- Mutua Madrid Open Schedule and Draws for Wednesday, April 24, 2024
- Novak Djokovic Earns 5th Laureus World Sportsman of the Year Award
- Mutua Madrid Open Schedule and Draws for Tuesday, April 23, 2024
- Rafael Nadal Commits to 2024 Laver Cup
- Mutua Madrid Open Schedule and Draws for Monday, April 22, 2024
- Casper Ruud Tops Stefanos Tsitsipas for Barcelona Title
- Former World No. 1 Garbiñe Muguruza Retires
- Fritz Flies Into First Clay-Court Final in Munich
- Munich Open Schedule and Draws for Sunday, April 21, 2024
AO 2018 • Are Tennis Slams Last Set Rule Needed? Wanted? • Tennis Players Are Warriors But….
- Updated: January 28, 2018
General view of the Melbourne skyline as Simona Halep of Romania plays Caroline Wozniacki of Denmark in the women’s final at the Australian Open tennis tournament in Melbourne, Australia, 27 January 2018. EPA-EFE/JULIAN SMITH
This is an interesting subject.
The no tiebreak rule in the final set of the first 3 majors. (Slams)
• Melbourne • Paris • London •
We just finished watching the Wozniacki-Halep final. Now we are not saying that Halep’s extended matches with Davis (15-13 in the 3rd) & Kerber (9-7 in the 3rd) were the reason she lost in the finals.
We do question the purpose of turning a match into a potential marathon •
to the detriment of the players health, the fans stamina or (interest) for staying long & late, the TV broadcast which overruns, the players in the matches that follow potentially waiting interminably for the extended match to end among other reasons. But what is the purpose of the rule?
Has anyone asked the players what they think? Shouldn’t what’s good and great and exciting about dramatic tiebreakers in the sets leading up to the final set be just the same for the final set?
The gold standard of the absurdity of the rule is the most “celebrated” extended final set of all time, the 2010 Wimby 1st round Isner-Mahut 70-68 debacle. Eleven hours, 3 days & Isner did not win another match the rest of the year! And what are we celebrating? That neither player had the goods to break serve until the 138th game? Is that nothing but the height of mediocrity we are celebrating?
•We celebrated that both players didn’t get sick, hurt or worse out there •LJ
•We celebrated that WIMBLEDON celebrated the most unusual situation in tennis history • LJ