I
felt bad that Roger Federer lost to Sergiy Stakhovsky 7-6(5), 6-7(5), 5-7,
6-7(5) in the second round of Wimbledon 2013. I would have been a little less
sad had the third set also been decided in a tie-break, preferably in Federer’s
favor. And, I have my reasons, and it is not that I love Federer’s game (I do,
but that is besides the point) or I wanted to see him win (I am neutral).
In
the recent post of mine about the things I hate about Wimbledon, I should have
added the rule about tie-breaks: no tie-break in the fifth set in five set
matches (Gentlemen’s Singles) and in the third for three set matches (Ladies’
Singles). This is not the same thing as “in the final set”, please note. The
final set of any match is the decider, be it the third, fourth or the fifth in
a five set match. But, it is the fifth alone that carries the privilege of
being decided by the two-game-difference criterion, eschewing a tie-break.
The
reason I did not include this in the list is that both Australian Open and
French Open also carry this stupidity. The US Open is the most logical in this
regard among the four major tournaments. The fifth set in men’s singles (or the
third set in women’s singles) is decided in a tie-break if the score reads 6-6.
Follow me on this – the gladiators have proven themselves to be equal as they
get set for the fifth set. Now, they have to be differentiated. How do you do
that? Tighten the screws. Make the pressure unbearable and see who the last man
(woman) standing is. The fairest of them all.
And,
tennis tie-break is exceedingly well-designed, to be fair to both the warriors.
The threshold of difference-of-two-games has been translated into difference of
two points – the screw tightening. The set merely continues and the tie-break
is the 13th game (the outlier yet the decider, as in Last Supper). It is fair even in a wider set of parameters.
The serve for the first point goes to the receiver of the 12th game.
Thereafter, it is two serves per contestant, first from the ad court and then
from the deuce court. Players change sides after six points (changing sides
after two games in regulation). The tie-break is scrupulously loyal to the
structure of the game. It is indeed tradition personified, yet changed.
“Tightening
the screws” is what happens in most athletic contests when the match spills
over regulation; be it golf (sudden death, three holes), football, T20,
basketball. OK, there are other contests in which a draw is decreed or the
original format is carried through. A draw leaves a bad after taste. It may be
OK in a cricket test series, but in a one-on-one competition under a knock out
format, it can have no place. In volley ball, it is difference-of-two points,
in regulation and beyond. In swimming, a tie is resolved at the winners’ podium
– two winners! (While the timing precision could be improved, the tolerances of
construction in swimming pools cannot justify differentiation by a thousandth of
a second).
In
tennis, then? A tie-break. No, says Wimbledon, and also the French and
Australian Opens. I hate them, hate them all.
Now,
I take you to the Wimbledon Finals of 1980. The fourth set was decided by
tie-break, at 18-16, in McEnroe’s favor. The match ended in the fifth with Borg
prevailing 8-6 (not a tie-break). That was a match, an all-time classic (point
to note: in the fifth set, McEnroe faced break points in every one of his
service games and he came nowhere near breaking Borg’s). But, even there if you
asked anyone to recall that match, it would be the tie-break, and not the final
set, that would be mentioned first. Yet, Wimbledon does not want the tie-break
in the fifth set. Go figure.
OK,
you may argue that it was too long ago. Then, let me fast forward to 2010
Wimbledon - the 23rd seed
John Isner defeated the French qualifier Nicolas Mahut in five sets, the score
reading 6-4, 3-6, 6-7(7), 7-6(3), 70-68. Yes, you read that right, 70-68 in the
fifth set. In the next round Isner lost 0-6, 3-6, 2-6; to whom, it matters little.
Isner said that he would do anything and everything that did not make him lift
a tennis racket for a month or so. What
did you expect?
Now
a days, like last night, if in any match the score card reads 6-6 in the final
set of the match, I either turn off the TV or switch channels. I may miss some
short, good extra tennis, but I would avoid the ignominy of watching a 70-68
set lasting over eight hours.
Now,
I come to why I felt sad that Federer did not win the third set of his match
against Stakhovsky. Just see who even the score line would have looked had we
won it 7-6(5). Then, the match would have had no options except to go something
like 122-120, in favor of either of the contestants. The match was that even!
It
appears now that the idiotic Brits have not learned any lesson from 70-68. But,
122-120 must have penetrated the thick skull of theirs.
To
continue with the title and end the post,
…is
good for the fifth!
Raghuram
Ekambaram
13 comments:
Nice post Raghu. Well it is unlikely the Brits will change tradition that easily.
- ravi
Thanks Ravi.
What about the French and the Aussie blokes? They are no less stupid!
RE
Good point about tie-breaks being allowed in 3rd or 4th sets that could decide the match.
However I'd argue that the current system has worked fine so far. The Wimbledon finals of 2001 and 2008 were classic matches that both finished 9-7 in the fifth. Isner-Mahut was a different story but I don't think they should change it just because of one match.
It's not just the Brits that have this system. The Aussie and French Opens do too; the Americans are the odd ones out here.
Obviously you can't have a draw in knockout tennis but I should point out that the most popular sport in the world (what I call football) has draws all the time.
when two players are equal..you need to create a process by which a choice is made..it is like both of you are equal but he won the toss.
so any arbitrary method is ok as long as the process does not allow stretching the players and the poor spectators to 122-120...
Thanks plutoman ...
I had mentioned that the French and Australian Open too carry this burden ... I am hoping someone would counter my argument and show that tie-break is inherently unfair. I explained the fairness of tie-break in some detail. I am waiting for the counter punch.
Remember also that in the Borg v. McEnroe match the tie-break fourth is talked about more than the 8-6 final set.
RE
dsampath,
I agree but getting to that sort of score is so unlikely under the present system I don't see what the problem is. Why change the system for the sake of something that might only happen once every 50 years?
DS sir, if only some statistical analyst could have projected what the score would be if the Federer match had indeed gone into the fifth. Something beyond 122-120? Can you imagine that?
Thanks.
RE
plutoman,
Let me respond to what you have asked DS.
The tie-break CHANGED the existing system. It was the pullback of British snobbery, subsequently endorsed by the French and Aussies that gave rise to the once in 50 years syndrome. had the no-tie-break system be adopted in all the sets, we would have no idea of how many matches would have gone into 100 plus games (20 games per set, on average). Well, I for one am glad we do not suffer another Charlie Pasarell's 112 game loss to Pancho Gonzalez. But this Isner game took the match into another low - 138 game set, a mere 41 years after the original!
RE
Mandakolathur,
I agree that the tie-break is fair. But so is playing out a set without a tie-break :)
It's not really a case of fairness, it's more a case of which gives a more satisfactory ending. The organizers of 75% of the grand slams think that a long fifth set does this better than a tie-break.
It's easy to single out matches to support a particular viewpoint. The level of tennis from both players in that 1980 tie-break was incredible. And it finished 18-16. It's no wonder people talked about it so much. But not every tie-break is that good!
plutoman,
I also made the point that the final set, which went into overtime, is not remembered but the fourth set tie-break is!
I agree that anecdotal support to an argument is a non-starter and I typically do not do it, except when it stares you in the face.
You see, there are enough tie-breaks to do a statistical analysis, but very few for overtime fifth sets. That is an argument indeed for retaining the Wimbledon structure. So few, so why you care type of position.
Yet, it is also an argument for doing away with it, as in the overall scheme of things such outliers will not matter much to the median.
And, I do not care about the three majors, in the context of all the other tournaments (including the season ending events, the ATP Masters) having accepted tie-breaks in the final sets. Further, even the other British major tournament, The Open (Golf) has a shortened playoff. It is snobbery and only snobbery. My earlier post delves into this aspect of The Championship.
RE
RE,
I understand your point about the 1980 final. But you're still cherry-picking ONE match from a long time ago (I was a couple of months old!). How about something from this century? Ivanisevic-Rafter 2001? Nadal-Federer 2008? The recent semi-final at the French between Djokovic and Nadal?
Actually a few hundred matches have reached 6-6 in the fifth under the current rules (not "very few" as you put it), and a lot of them have been very good contests. But not many have got to say 18-18 (just three?) and that's precisely my point. You're trying to fix a problem that I don't think exists, and curtailing some classic matches in the process.
I also don't get your hatred for Wimbledon! Ever been there? I have, four times. The various traditions (white clothing, lack of advertising, NOT having people shouting out during points) takes the tournament up a couple of notches in my view. There's also a sense of intimacy you don't get at other venues. And they have embraced technology (such as Hawk-Eye) like in other tournaments. Why you say tradition implies snobbery I have no idea.
As for the demise of serve-and-volley at Wimbledon, you've got a valid point there but be careful what you wish for! I'd hate to go back to those soporific rally-free matches involving Sampras and Ivanisevic in the 90's.
plutoman
A few hundred 6-6 in the 5th set (I'd even throw in three set ladies singles) and not decided by a tie-break in the tie-break era? Hmm...
For that matter I haven't been to the French, Australian or the US Opens either. So, perhaps I am more equidistant (?).
For you 70-68 does not exist but for me it does. 22-20 of Pancho Gonzalez also exists.
If you want to mention serve and volley game, pick one from the following:
McEnroe, Edberg, Cash, Rafter
Sampras and Ivanovic are ersatz serve and volley players, coming in only to put away an easy opportunity. The ones I mentioned dared the opponents at the net. That IS exciting.
I hate retaining a tradition for the sake of retaining that tradition. If Sunday final is OK, tie-break must be OK.
Oh, you say, Sunday final earned a lot of dough from NBC in the early 1980s! I understand the non-commercial nature of Wimbledon now.
OK, you go your way and I will mine. It is for you to answer Sampras.
Let us leave it at that, shall we?
RE
Post a Comment