hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 6, 2009 15:48:02 GMT -5
RDF, I totally understand the rotation basis for serving after the initial "winner" is determined. All I was saying was that if you are going to have a "special" rule for the fifth set -- specifically that there will be no tiebreaker and you must win by 2 games, then I think it would make sense to rotate the order after what amounts to a "full set" had been completed. It won't happen a lot, but in a case like this, I think it would make sense and that it would be a more fair system. If you disagree, please explain why instead of your typical "blah-blah, HiFi this or that" argument.
Yes, when Roddick didn't capitalize on that opportunity, I "knew" he wasn't going to pull it out. Actually, I never felt like he would win. I just had the feeling that Roger would make the plays when he had to. I actully didn't see that game. I had to run over to the other side of the lake to pick up a pump, but was listening to constant updates on ESPN Radio.
In any case, I do think it would be more fair to rotate as I suggested in those rare occasions where such a circumstance arises.
Stig, I was a serve and volley player almost exclusively, so I always liked to serve first but I see your point. But my comment wasn't really directed to the start of the match, but rather towards a final set. In that regard, do you see my point or do you think that the luck of the draw should be that important?
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jul 6, 2009 17:33:57 GMT -5
One problem would be that a "set" can be anywhere between 6 and 13 games. So in the fifth set yesterday were there 5 sets or 2 sets and a bit. Also lets say that if you arbitrarily assign say 11 games as a set then someone could end that "set" up 5-6 and then hold serve in the first game of the next "set." this defeats the purpose of having to break serve to win.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 6, 2009 18:15:55 GMT -5
One problem would be that a "set" can be anywhere between 6 and 13 games. So in the fifth set yesterday were there 5 sets or 2 sets and a bit. Also lets say that if you arbitrarily assign say 11 games as a set then someone could end that "set" up 5-6 and then hold serve in the first game of the next "set." this defeats the purpose of having to break serve to win. I'm sure he means every 6 games after the first 12 like it were a tie-break. So 9-9, 12-12, etc. But this rule doesn't seem to make it any better. I just held serve to make it 9-9 on three deuces, and now I have to continue serving? I don't think I want to do that. I'd rather re-group at that point.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 7, 2009 0:47:01 GMT -5
Well, don't blow a 6-2 lead in 2nd set tie-breaker and then there is no 5th set to win by 2 games.
I just hate when rules should be "looked at/changed" when everyone is playing by the same rules and it's an individual sport. Nadal beat Federer in last year's match and Federer was serving first--and it went 16 games in 5th set.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 7, 2009 8:21:11 GMT -5
Absolutely no reason to change the rules. And rather than "special rules" for the 5th set, the reality is that "special rules" were adopted for the earlier sets when Tie Breakers were first introduced. Wimbledon opted to retain the tradition of requiring players to win the traditional way -- by two games -- for the 5th and final set.
Nothing wrong with that decision. Nothing unfair. Same rules for everyone. And a GREAT match by Federer AND Roddick! Congratulations to both guys. The last couple of Wimbledon Men's Finals have been astounding!
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2009 10:12:19 GMT -5
Absolutely no reason to change the rules. And rather than "special rules" for the 5th set, the reality is that "special rules" were adopted for the earlier sets when Tie Breakers were first introduced. Wimbledon opted to retain the tradition of requiring players to win the traditional way -- by two games -- for the 5th and final set. Yeah, if I have any quibble with the rules, its that the US Open and every major tennis tournament doesn't require this. (I think the French and Aussie use Wimbledon's traditional rules...am I right on that?) And that goes for the women too. Don't you show me a picture of either of the Williams sisters and tell me they couldn't take a longer match if necessary. (for that matter, why can't women play 5 sets? does a female marathoner run a shorter distance than 26.2? do female swimmers use a smaller pool than the men? does the WNBA.....um, never mind) These are professional athletes. (Moreover, they are professional athletes making a buttload of money.) They are expected to be in peak physical condition. That's part of the game. They should be able to play some extended "overtime" when an even match requires it. Don't get me wrong. The tiebreak isn't an awful rule, and I think it is appropriate for every set but the 5th (or 3rd for women), otherwise matches could become interminable. But when two players have played such a close match that they're even after 12 games in the final set, then the match shouldn't be decided by some "mini-game." Play it out! Having said all of that, let me echo what everone else has said and applaud both Federer and Roddick for their amazing performances.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 7, 2009 10:42:24 GMT -5
It seems to me women really shouldn't complain about disparate winnings figures between men and women until they are all playing best of five.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 7, 2009 10:50:18 GMT -5
I sort of like having it different for the US Open. The nice thing about tennis is that the 4 Grand Slams each have their own twists. The biggest differences are obviously court surfaces, but there are also differences in atmosphere, tradition, and so on. The variety is something that fans really enjoy, and the different tiebreaker rules add to that.
The 5th set tiebreak is one of the things that sets the US Open apart, and I think it's appropriate. Americans love drama in sports, where everything is riding on one moment, and tiebreakers are perfect for that. On the flip side, extended 5th sets are very appropriate for Wimbledon, which is all about tradition. I actually wouldn't mind if they scrapped tiebreakers altogether at Wimbledon, although the TV companies obviously wouldn't like that.
Once nice thing is that tennis tiebreakers are very well designed and very fair. It's not like a penalty shootout in soccer, which is an awful way to decide a game.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 7, 2009 11:45:20 GMT -5
Golf also does different tie-breakers for each of its Majors: US Open with the full 18 hole playoff on Monday, British Open with a 4 hole mini playoff, Masters and PGA with sudden death, if I recall correctly.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 7, 2009 15:16:08 GMT -5
Good points all and I'm glad someone mentioned the golf comparison. Personally, I like the mini-playoff that the British Open uses, but the excitement of sudden death is undeniable and as far as the U.S. Open goes ... what's wrong with an extra day of golf? It makes that Monday afternoon at work go by quite a bit quicker ... although I'm probably not as gracious and polite with the customers as I should be.
Getting back to tennis, I see the point some are making that after "your guy" loses, there's a human tendency to look for an "excuse." I can't deny that that might be playing a bit of a factor in my views and I was certainly rooting for Roddick. But in all seriousness, I think my suggestion makes a lot of sense. Obviously, my words here on a message board aren't likely to matter one iota on the grand scale of things, but I really do think it makes sense.
I understand the argument that the 5th set rules aren't "changed" but are rather, adopted as they were to begin with. But I don't think that addresses the issue. The point is that for the first 4 sets, there is a tiebreaker when 6 games a piece is reached. So if the decision has been made to not have a tiebreaker in the 5th and final/ultimate set, then I think it's reasonable to consider a "balancing" should 6-6 or 12-12 be reached. That's all I'm saying. Would I be making this point if Roddick had won? I don't know, but probably. I was thinking about it about 4 games into the final set. As it was pretty clear that breaking either of these guys serves was quite a monumental task, I was already thinking about the advantage it was to go first. Like I said in the earlier post, if you get the quick break then the roles are obviously reversed, but the point is that these guys were at a significant advantage when serving. But Roddick never had the chance to "close it out" by breaking serve. Roger Federer had that chance 11 times before completing the task on the 12th. Does anyone else see my point? I'm not complaining about a great match. But I honestly think that it would be reasonable to alternate the serving rotation somehow to give each player a shot in each position. The normal "set" rotation makes sense, as that is how the order changes during the rest of the match.
Just a thought ...
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2009 15:19:32 GMT -5
Golf also does different tie-breakers for each of its Majors: US Open with the full 18 hole playoff on Monday, British Open with a 4 hole mini playoff, Masters and PGA with sudden death, if I recall correctly. Yup, I don't like the golf system either. Sorry, didn't mean to single tennis out. It was just the subject of a thread. With golf, I don't know that an 18-hole playoff is necessary. That's akin to telling tennis players after five sets, "OK, we're going to start all over now. Not just this one set, but the whole match" I think the four-hole playoff is the best format for golf. It is enough to eliminate flukey wins, which sudden death does not do.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 7, 2009 16:37:52 GMT -5
Golf also does different tie-breakers for each of its Majors: US Open with the full 18 hole playoff on Monday, British Open with a 4 hole mini playoff, Masters and PGA with sudden death, if I recall correctly. Yup, I don't like the golf system either. Sorry, didn't mean to single tennis out. It was just the subject of a thread. With golf, I don't know that an 18-hole playoff is necessary. That's akin to telling tennis players after five sets, "OK, we're going to start all over now. Not just this one set, but the whole match" I think the four-hole playoff is the best format for golf. It is enough to eliminate flukey wins, which sudden death does not do. Actually, with golf, you're not replaying everything (which would be all three days) - just one. Essentially, you're replaying one set. It makes sense in the idea that golf course holes are parts of a larger whole - you don't just play holes 6, 12, and 13 and say you've played Augusta.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2009 17:00:13 GMT -5
Actually, with golf, you're not replaying everything (which would be all three days) - just one. Essentially, you're replaying one set. It makes sense in the idea that golf course holes are parts of a larger whole - you don't just play holes 6, 12, and 13 and say you've played Augusta. I disagree. In tennis, you are playing seven "rounds" as opposed to four rounds in golf. An 18-hole playoff in golf would represent an an additional 25 percent of the total number of holes played. The equivalent in tennis would be like having the finalists play half of the semis and all of the finals over again, instead of just having them continue the fifth set, which might result in them playing one or two at most additional sets, not matches, in total. And golfers have already played all of these holes four times. All I am looking for is a playoff that provides a fair sample of the game they have played. It doesn't have to be overly burdensome. Not too short to be flukey (like a sudden death golf playoff or the tennis tiebreak), but it doesn't have to be so long that it is unwatchable...as extra rounds in the US Open always are for 90 percent of the viewing public. It's a lot easier in the team and timed sports of course.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 8, 2009 13:28:06 GMT -5
Boz, I'll meet you half-way there. It's "easier" in basketball or soccer for sure. But I don't think football lends itself very well to overtime. If you play it as sudden death, then too buch significance is placed on a flip of a coin. But if you do a Texas or Oklahoma style playoff, like high schools and college use, then you have pretty much totally changed the game somewhat. I'm not especially fond of either option, although both are superior to having ties.
Getting back to my question: does anyone like the idea of flipping the serving order after some number of games -- like 6 or 12? I think it makes sense.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,781
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 8, 2009 21:16:54 GMT -5
"If you play it as sudden death, then too buch [sic] significance is placed on a flip of a coin."
In the NFL, the team that wins the coin flip wins 52% of the time. Adjsut for that, fine, but it's hardly a massive advantage.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 8, 2009 23:33:21 GMT -5
SF, fair enough and that is a good stat and a somewhat surprising one to me. But I agree that it is tough to argue my position with such a statistic. Let's face it, a 52-48% advantage is basically what the casino has against craps pass/don't pass line players and not much off of the advantage the casinos have over blackjack players who play proper basic strategy. And we all know how well the players do there.
Just kidding ...
In all seriousness, I am surprised that the advantage is so low. I know there aren't very many ties in the NFL, but there are some. Obviously, in a tie, both teams tie, so you can't put much/any emphasis on that statistically. But off the top of my head, it would seem to me that the coin-flip winner is at more of an advantage than that. If your wording is precise, then the winner of the coin flip wins 52% of the time. The coin-flip loser, will therefore win something less than 48% [100%-52%-x%(the percentage of ties)]. Still, I must say that I'm a little bit surprised that the number isn't higher than that.
An unrelated question is what everyone thinks of the sudden death playoff in the NFL. But I will save that for another day.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 8, 2009 23:39:21 GMT -5
Actually, the more I think about it, that tie option might support my position. There aren't very many overtimes to begin with, on the grand scale of things. Then again, there aren't many ties. But if there is an average of 1.5 overtimes per NFL weekend, (abstracting away from "bye weeks" for simplicity sake), then there would be 24 over the course of the season. If there is just 1 tie for every 2 seasons, then that would swing that percentage by almost 5% would it not? And in this case, the entire nearly 5% would come off of the coin-flip loser's percentage. In other words, wouldn't it be something like 52%-43%-5%? If so, then I still think that too much emphasis and significance would be "tied" to the coin flip.
Thoughts?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 9, 2009 0:26:37 GMT -5
I think football ought to use a soccer-style overtime. Two short (5 to 10 minute) halves, no sudden death. Kickoff at the start of each half, plus change ends, so everything is fair.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,781
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 9, 2009 8:08:11 GMT -5
There isn't a tie every two seasons. And there are a lot more than 24 OT games a season, I think.
Reality is, it is just a part of football to play defense and get the ball back as it is to be on offense.
I think the college version is ridiculous. You're basically eliminating punting, punt return, coverage, kickoff return and coverage, the deep ball, explosiveness, etc., from the game. It's like the shootout -- really, we want to completely alter the game?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 9, 2009 12:22:22 GMT -5
SF, I wouldn't argue with you. That's what I meant when I said: But if you do a Texas or Oklahoma style playoff, like high schools and college use, then you have pretty much totally changed the game somewhat. I'm not especially fond of either option.
But I don't like the sudden death option either. It's just too easy for the team to win the flip and then get 3 first downs and kick a 50 yard field goal and win without the other team even getting a chance.
Stig, I kind of like your suggestion. That was something I was kicking around in my head as well.
|
|