- Thread starter
- #1
booooooooooo
I'm a fan of the no tie break in final sets in slams rule. I just find it unique. Not a fan of them getting rid of something unique.Why? These long ridiculous 5th set tiebreakers basically guarantees they're not competitive in the following match
Discussing it with the other 2 GS events too. I am sure the Aussie will change too. French who cares. It will be 1 more reason not to watch.
I'm a fan of the no tie break in final sets in slams rule. I just find it unique. Not a fan of them getting rid of something unique.
I think this is perfect. Playing up to 12-12 means they get to play an extra set before going to the tiebreaker
Great. The old format is like teetering into the figurative macabre or dance of death; 26-24 Isner/Anderson? That's isane.
Pardon me. I mean "insane" and not a play on Isner,Great. The old format is like teetering into the figurative macabre or dance of death; 26-24 Isner/Anderson? That's isane.
meh, playing well enough to avoid long matches is part of the game.Why? These long ridiculous 5th set tiebreakers basically guarantees they're not competitive in the following match
meh, playing well enough to avoid long matches is part of the game.
those are smaller one week tournaments.Ridiculous. Why make it 2/3 sets?
those are smaller one week tournaments.
No I don't think about it because it is silly. If your premise is correct why do they have to end any tie brake in a set with a best of 7?
I'm a fan of the no tie break in final sets in slams rule. I just find it unique. Not a fan of them getting rid of something unique.
Great. The old format is like teetering into the figurative macabre or dance of death; 26-24 Isner/Anderson? That's isane.