1 of 1

Write now Article Tools

In the 2008 Australian Open, top seed Roger Federer won a grueling 3rd round encounter against Serbian player, Janko Tipsarevic. The score was 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1, 10-8 and the match lasted nearly four and a half hours.

There have been concerns expressed by players and medical people, in the past, about the effects of playing best of five set matches in the hot conditions that tend to be present in Melbourne. The Federer vs Tipsarevic match will probably, therefore, bring renewed calls, in some quarters, for a tie-break rule to be introduced in the fifth set.

Tie-breaks were first introduced, in tennis, back in 1970 and are now played in the first 4 sets if the score reaches six games all. The US Open has gone one step further and introduced tie-breaks at the end of the fifth and deciding set. Wimbledon and the Australian Open have, however, so far resisted the temptation to do likewise.

The arguments for introducing fifth set tie breaks fall into 2 main categories. The first is to protect the health of the players. The take-up of tie-breaks in major tournaments followed an epically long match at Wimbledon in 1969. Pancho Gonzalez (who was 41!) beat Charlie Pasarell 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. Modern players don't know how lucky they are!

The second argument in favour of fifth set tie-breaks is to simply get a resolution to a match. With players serving so much harder than in past eras, there can be a danger of a match going on all night. Fans might prefer to see a more speedy conclusion of the match, and organisers might like to be able to get that next match played!

These are both valid arguments but, personally, I am opposed to scrapping fifth set tie-breaks. My reason is simple - when you get a match like the Federer vs Tisparevic one, the drama is already high once the match has entered the final set. Then as the scores get to 6-6, 7-7, 8-8, etc, the tension, excitement and drama can rise to epic proportions. To move to a sudden death tie-break would deprive us of some of the truly great matches.

Other factors that I would cite against moving to a tie-break to decide a match include the fact that tie-breaks tend to benefit the player with the better serve. The likes of Ivanisevic, Sampras, and Roddick would no doubt jump at the chance to settle a match through a tie-break. However, many of the fans favourites, like Connors, Agassi, and Nadal would be more vulnerable. Do we really want to see the introduction of something that would benefit power over skill? The other thing I'd stress is that the Grand Slams are meant to be special. I'm fine with the lesser events having a deciding set tie-break but winning a Grand Slam should involve titanic physical effort.

As for the health argument, we're talking about very fit young men, and there are already rules (in the Australian Open) regarding extreme heat conditions. Under the Extreme heat policy, introduced in 1998, no new matches will commence on outside courts, but matches already in progress continue to their conclusion. A sensible amend to this rule might be to say that a match should come off court if the temperature exceeds a certain level, or if the court-side doctor advises that conditions are dangerous. (Note: This extreme heat element will rarely be a factor at Wimbledon, unless global warming does something dramatic to English summers!)

For the integrity of these Grand Slams and to ensure that spectators don't miss out on epic matches, I feel that it's important that final sets aren't concluded by a tie-break. However, I fear that it's only a matter of time before a 10-8 type finish is a thing of the past.

Learn more about this author, Simon Wright.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Arguments against Wimbledon and the Australian Open introducing final set tie-breaks?
We want to hear your view. Write now!