Simple idea... Limit the match to at most 70 games (42 in a 3-set match), then decide based on the total number of points won.
After watching Wimbledon last night and the longest match between Isner and Muhat. Seeing Isner look at the point of collapse, there was a lot of discussion going around facebook about tiebreakers in the final set.
For me I would hate to see tiebreakers used in the final set at Wimbledon, as it would be such an anti climax, I would liken it to losing by penalties in football. I know they do in other grand slam tournaments.
What do others think?
Simple idea... Limit the match to at most 70 games (42 in a 3-set match), then decide based on the total number of points won.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Surely that could end up as a draw at the end of 42 or 70 games??
I suppose a compromise could be reducing the matches to 3 sets and keeping the last set without a tiebreaker – I just prefer to see a natural end to the game rather than an enforced one because of time pressure.
I think that once they reach 20-20 they should have to play Russian roulette to decide the winner.
45 minutes each way.
After 90 minutes, who has the most points wins...
If a draw, sudden death, 3 points clear wins.
Or there's the JK Rowling approach: anyone who catches the tennis ball in a suitably spectacular manner is awarded 2 sets and 6 games (thereby instantly winning unless the other person already had a 2 sets and 5-0 lead).
This works even better if anyone means anyone - you could have Federer and Nadal slugging it out in the final and then someone in the crowd catches the ball and is made Wimbledon champion.
[Why yes, I do think the Quidditch rules are stupid and blatantly only there so Harry Potter is the only player who matters - why do you ask?]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks