|
|
Articles & Essays by Paul Fein
Copyright 2001
What They're Saying about
Tiebreakers Replacing Third Sets . . .
Mark Woodforde: “I think it’s abominable that Grand
Slams can shorten any match in mixed or doubles with a third
set tiebreaker. For what reason? Is this just to keep TV executives
happy that a doubles match won’t interfere with a singles
match? You’ve got to be kidding me! You’re not only robbing
the players of a chance to play tennis and the paying public
to see tennis, but it’s also less of a chance to see the better
team work out how to win. A third-set tiebreaker becomes a
crap shoot. Why mess with something so sacred as playing out
the third set?”
Merv Heller (president of the United States Tennis
Association): “The game of doubles at the professional level
needs a shot of reality. Less tournaments are featuring the
doubles game, and television has virtually stopped its coverage.
We must try innovative methods to keep it alive at the professional
level, and just as important, to get the top players, particu-larly
on the men’s side, to play the game. If we do not try innovative
scoring methods, there will be further erosion. Every change
in scoring has brought appropriate cries from the traditionalists,
and they are not wrong about defending the game. However,
I believe only a few would still insist on playing out a set
or playing with white balls.”
Magnus Norman: “I don’t think it’s a good idea because
one of the elements for being a good athlete and tennis player
is to be fit and in excellent shape. To take the third set
away would be very disappointing. Many of the best matches
in the history of tennis have been played in the third or
fifth set of a match.”
Daja Bedanova (who upset Meghann Shaughnessy and Monica
Seles to reach the 2001 U.S. Open quarters): “Maybe it’s good
to give it a try, but I really don’t like that idea. It’s
not only that tennis is great as it is, but, if you do a change
like that, it really changes everything. Tennis won’t be as
fair as it is now. Because if a worse player wins a set by
chance, then loses the second set really easily, then in a
tiebreaker anything can happen.”
Brian Earley (Tournament Referee, U.S. Open, on behalf
of the USTA): “The mixed doubles, while entertaining and competitive,
has become an event that is played for fun and for some extra
money. There are no ranking points, and given that players
do not play doubles before singles or mixed doubles before
doubles, matches are often played late in the day or in the
evening. If a player is in the singles, he/she often stays
late for mixed, then must come back the next day for singles.
You often see great players withdraw from the mixed late in
the tournament for this reason. Would they stay and play if
they were assured that their mixed match would end at a reasonable
time? The jury is out, but we thought it was important to
give it a try.”
Fred Stolle : “As a past Grand Slam champion, I would
hate to see the change across the board. However, I agree
with Brian Early, the U.S. Open referee, that mixed doubles
is played for some fun, some money and some prestige without
top [singles] players. So tournaments could use these matches
to ‘slot in’ mixed sessions when time is threatened or for
TV. As a tournament director, I support smaller draws in doubles
to reduce this problem, but not in Grand Slams where I favor
two-of-three-set matches up to the quarterfinals and three-of-five
sets in the semis and final.”
Francoise Durr (winner of one singles, seven doubles
and three mixed doubles Grand Slam titles in the 1960s-’70s):
“Doubles should have more recognition. A tiebreaker for a
third set is not going to improve the situation. It may be
better for the promoter and TV but not for the players. In
all of the team events, Davis Cup, Fed Cup and the others,
the doubles is very important. We must show the doubles on
TV, and we cannot play only two sets [and a tiebreaker] in
Davis Cup and Fed Cup where doubles sometimes is the decisive
point. In this case, consistency is a virtue. We should keep
the same thing in the Slams.”
Jan-Michael Gambill (U.S. Davis Cupper world-ranked
No. 21): “The replacement of the third set with a tiebreaker
in men’s singles would be utter lunacy. It would change the
game from one that takes hard work in order to win, to one
that could be won with luck. It would also take away from
the ones that work so hard to be in shape for long matches.
For doubles, using a third set tiebreaker would certainly
add a degree of finality, and most likely, some excitement.
However, I am still not convinced that it is the way to go.
I play doubles quite often and happen to like it the way it
is now, but many organizers do not. If the meddlers must have
their way, then this is less severe then some of the other
options that I have seen.”
Kevin Ullyet (2001 U.S. doubles champion with Wayne
Black): “Doubles is a historical part of the game. Trying
to cut it short is sacrilegious. They are saying to us, ‘Come
on, we’ll give you two sets, then we want you out of there.
We don’t want you to take too much TV time.’ ”
Tim Wilkison (winner of six singles and nine doubles
ATP tournaments): “My only concern is having a scoring system
that produces a fair winner, but I think you get a fair winner
either way. People are just used to the three-set format because
that is what they grew up with. If they grow up with a super
tiebreaker (in lieu of a third set), I am sure they will think
that is fair also. Less sets means less injuries, and that
is a pretty good goal for any level of play. That, along with
more precise timing and more exciting endings, seem to be
the main pluses to the shorter system. My main concern is
that the USTA keep junior tennis scoring the same as whatever
the Pro Tour uses.”
Rennae Stubbs (2001 Wimbledon and U.S. Open doubles
champion with Lisa Raymond and 2001 U.S. Open mixed doubles
champion with Todd Woodbridge): “Why must the tennis hierarchy
keep toying around with the idea that the doubles game needs
to be fixed? What needs to be fixed is the way the players
are marketed! And the way tournament directors schedule! Why
would anyone watch a mixed doubles match featuring the best
doubles players in the world when no one has ever seen them
play on TV? Think about it. If more people got to watch doubles
on TV, then more people would know us and then there would
be no need to ‘get us off the court in under two hours.’ Tennis
needs to market better -- period.”
Alan Schwartz (USTA Vice President): “The game of doubles
is alive and well at the amateur level, but sick physically
and emotionally at the professional level. Too few marquee
players play doubles. Doubles, with few exceptions, plays
to sparse crowds, and doubles prize money is, accordingly,
small by comparison. Changes are needed. The status quo doesn’t
work. Doubles needs more drama. Three tiebreaker sets, with
tiebreakers at 4-game-all would help, or, alternatively, a
super tiebreaker instead of a third set. The super tiebreaker
in the U.S. Open mixed doubles finals was great theatre. Bring
on the drama and let’s provide the fans a chance to see great
doubles.”
Betsy Nagelsen (1978 Australian Open finalist and doubles
champion and 1987 Wimbledon doubles finalist): “I have always
liked tradition in tennis. However, the real old traditions
of tennis have already changed to some extent, and one has
to accept that modern technology, and thus the needs, demands
and temperaments of modern media and people will inevitably
require changes from the old ways. The trick will be to merge
tradition with necessary change as subtly as possible. If
I were forced to choose one scoring system or the other, I
would keep the traditional scoring format and try to find
other ways of governing the time scale of matches.”
Ian Wight (Director of The Stella Artois Championships):
“The super tiebreaker is a bad idea because it trivializes
a great game.”
Ham Richardson (1950s American tennis star and Rhodes
Scholar): “The scoring system in doubles should not be changed
for the major championships. However, the authorities clearly
need to do something to bring doubles to more prominence in
Tennis. After all, doubles is what most people play, at least
after the age of about thirty.”
Francisco Maciel (president of the Federacion Mexicana
de Tenis): “In my opinion, a tiebreaker instead of a traditional,
complete deciding set would demonstrate that the better player
is not always the winner. This proposal arose because the
stadiums are not completely full and the public interest is
decreasing mainly in the third set of doubles or singles.
However, the problem is more complex. The tiebreaker is not
the solution in this case.”
Pam Shriver (winner of 21 doubles and one mixed doubles
Grand Slam titles): “I am for trying new ways to score in
cases where it makes sense. It has grown harder and harder
to get top players involved in mixed doubles because of the
demands of the other events. A player, knowing that mixed
doubles time would be limited to two sets plus a tiebreaker,
might be encouraged to play more. A shorter format might keep
fewer teams from withdraw-ing in the mixed. Also, I think
the format is exciting for the fans. Mixed doubles is a distant
third in prestige at the majors, so it is a good place to
try it. Some national senior players are not happy with the
format, but maybe in just doubles it would be a good idea.
In junior events the doubles would be more popular if a tiebreaker
was played for a third set.”
Krishna Bhupathi (director of the Gold Flake/ATP World
Doubles Championships): “It’s a shame that tournament directors
and many others involved at the highest decision-making level
look only (italics) at the bottom line. ATP, ITF and tournament
directors can help build doubles stars by insuring the media
covers the doubles and mixed doubles and reports all their
results. When those results are published daily, doubles standouts
will automatically become household names and attract crowds
and sponsors. We should also aim to make stars out of doubles
specialists and to entice topnotch singles players to play
doubles. Cutting off doubles to a [deciding set] tiebreaker
scenario is slow poison and diminishes our wonderful game.”
Michael Luevano (Director of Heineken Open Shanghai
and WTA Kiwi Open Shanghai): “Our Chinese spectators have
a fascination and respect for doubles and would not want the
game played or scored any differently than it is now, and
I agree with them. The Chinese people are masters at racket
sports, such as table tennis and badminton, and an abbreviated
version of the scoring to determine the outcome would be unheard
of. The root of tennis’ doubles problem lies with convincing
more top singles players to team up and play doubles. But
with the big money out there in guarantees -- and believe
me, I know -- the pressure to perform for endorsements, and
heavy playing schedules, it’s tough to get them to play doubles.”
Gene Harper (ATP Doubles Promotion Consultant): “The
players do not want to go to a super tiebreaker, but almost
100 percent of the other stakeholders in the game do. Scheduling
is a huge factor. Doubles matches get the worst courts and
worst times. If the scheduling is bad, no one will watch --
no matter who is playing. Doubles specialists will tell you
they are not promoted. They are right. How do you promote
someone that no one has ever heard of and changes partners
every week? Impossible! Teams that win consistently will automatically
attract publicity. Same as in singles. Winners and stars are
what tennis fans want to see. Doubles teams that win events
will get people excited over the long run.”
Hans Felius (Director of Professional Tennis in Holland):
“While I am always interested in new ideas to improve the
game, my personal credo is: Do not change any rules or policies
unless you are sure it will help move the game forward. We
have tried the no-ad rule, the no-let rule, the short set/best-of-five
rule, and the super tiebreaker as a third-set rule, but we
all feel that none of those rules made tennis more attractive,
and in fact, were harmful.”
Johan Kriek (1981-82 Australian Open singles champion
and inventor of the Super Tiebreaker): “This format will work
well for most senior tour and club players. [But] I don’t
think it’s wise to start using this in any form on the ATP
or Sanex WTA Tour. The scoring system for professionals is
fine. Leave it alone! Fitness is a big issue in tennis. I
cramped only twice in my entire career, and I prided myself
on being very fit and physical on the court.”
Jay Snyder (U.S. Open Tournament Advisor): “Tournament
Referee Brian Earley and I made the change to the tiebreaker
in lieu of the third set in our Masters events several years
ago to counter the unusual number of injury or fatigue-related
retirements. We advocated the same reform in the mixed doubles
this year for three reasons. We wanted to encourage more marquee
players to play mixed doubles and to discourage players from
pulling out of the mixed doubles during the later rounds to
concentrate on their singles. Also, the ‘best-of-two’ format
allowed us this year to better showcase the mixed event up
to and including the final, which never would have been played
at night in front of 20,000-plus people had it been a traditional
best-of-three.”
Paul Goldstein (former Stanford star who finished in
world top 100 in 1999 and 2000): “While I am eager to listen
to proposals that would bring about positive change for the
game of doubles, there is no question that replacing the third
set with a super tiebreaker for doubles play would mark a
regression for the game. As a player, I feel that it would
diminish the value of a win, particularly a three-set victory.
Further, adopting the super tiebreaker for doubles only sends
the message that organizers of the event, such as the tournament
directors and the ATP, view it as inferior to singles. Such
an image essentially renders doubles players as ‘second- class
citizens,’ thus making it even more difficult to promote the
game.”
Peter Johnston (General Manager Men’s Tennis, Tennis
Australia): “The ‘Best-of-2’ is the only scoring format which
addresses the issue of time at every level. In the pro game
a doubles match can be played before a singles match on the
main stadium, as it guarantees the maximum time will be less
than it was traditionally. At the grassroots levels it’s also
essential because tennis is competing against other forms
of entertainment for people’s increasingly scarce time. With
‘Best of 2,’ parents can plan their day with better scheduling
at junior events, and league competitions can offer more time-effective
formats. We believe that if the format is showcased at the
highest level, it will be adopted at all levels.”
David Hall (1995, 1998 and 2000 world wheelchair tennis
champion from Australia): “When I first heard of this new
scoring system, it really made me cringe. Playing best-of-three
sets, not two sets and a tiebreak, is a true indication of
the best player on the court. Next thing you know players
will be playing best-of-three tiebreaks. Everything seems
to be getting shorter and shorter. Everything for TV. With
the experience of playing approximately 600 best-of-three-set
matches on the Wheelchair Tennis Tour, I am against it.”
Randy Snow (10-time U.S. Open wheelchair tennis champion):
“The longer the match, the greater the chance the result will
tell the truth as to who the better player is. But just as
in every other sport has done in this ever-changing world,
we must keep in mind the fan who buys the ticket, the t-shirt
and the hot dog. We must ‘sell’ the sport for it to be successful.
My vote is for tiebreakers AS the third set. The players will
adjust their preparation to this rule change, and the fans
will fill the stands.”
Pat Cash (1987 Wimbledon singles champion): “The Grand
Slams should not be dictated by TV. Grand Slam tennis is bigger
than any TV network. Can you imagine playing for two million
dollars at the Paris Indoor [tournment] against Philippoussis
or Rusedski and having six aces hit by you in a super tiebreaker?
It will happen. It will make it better for TV [purposes],
but it is not a true test. At the end of the day, money will
win out, as always, and the politicians inside tennis will
get their way, as always. Unfortunately, the spineless ATP
will capitulate, as always, and Grand Slam titles and millions
of dollars, not to mention careers, will be decided on luck,
not skill. What a pity!”
Tony Trabert (TV tennis analyst and 1955 French, Wimbledon
and U.S. champion): “Should tiebreakers replace deciding sets? Absolutely
not! A tiebreaker at 6-games-all in the final set is fine. In my opinion,
the scoring system that currently exists in tennis is fine. Let’s
not mess it up.”
Dwight Chapin (tennis columnist, San Francisco Chronicle)."This
latest scheme is wrong-headed on almost every level. People are
always trying to shorten the length of baseball games, too, but,
to me, not having a clock on it is a major part of its attraction.
As a writer, I seldom cover doubles matches of any sort, but that's
mainly because they're scheduled immediately after singles matches,
when I am furiously trying to cope with deadlines. A change in format
thus is not going to entice me to cover more doubles play."
Back to Top
|