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