Do Away with Winning by Two Games

The match between Simona Halep and Angelique Kerber was another gritty performance by Halep and hard-earned win to take her to her first Australian Open final. Watching it, I wasn't just impressed by how much steelier her nerve has become under Coach Darren Cahill. I decided all the Grand Slams should have a tiebreaker in their final sets and not require players to win the final set by two games.

Here's why. It's not that I mind watching the longer matches. They can be entertaining, even somewhat spellbinding, when they run long. But that shouldn't be the winning argument. Instead, there are other considerations.

First, in this injury-plagued game, requiring players to win by two in match after match is just too much on the players' bodies. It literally wears them down. Halep mentioned her sore ankle right after her match and how she's looking forward, not to the final, but getting to rest after it. Tiebreakers would give a much more tangible end in sight for the players during a match.

It's not that I prefer shorter matches. I don't. I hate the deciding point gimmick that is used in the Australian in mixed doubles. Games should be won by two points. That makes them more exciting and keeps fitness an important part of the sport. But requiring the whole match to be won by two games can do permanent damage to a player's body. John Isner's 70-68 final set against Nicolas Mahut did a number on both their careers. I think it took away some of their will to fight in the long run, it was so draining.

Requiring a player to win by two in the final set also is unfair. This may be just the once amateur tennis player in me. But it seems there is an inherent advantage to the player who is serving first at 5-5. Yes, there's that same advantage at 4-4. But if the server goes up 5-4, he or she can be tied at 5-5. Then if the server is up 6-5, the other player knows he or she can make things relatively even again by getting to 6-6 and bring the match to a tiebreaker. On the other hand, if the match goes on and on until someone wins by two, it can be draining for the player who is forever the receiver one game down. If everyone is holding serve, the receiver one game down is constantly playing a game of catch up and is likelier to be up against match points sooner. The server who is continually ahead by one game is likelier to get to match points sooner if he or she is doing his or her job and holding serve. Tiebreakers cut through that nonsense and even the playing field.

The main consideration though should be players' health. If the pros' tennis season isn't going to be made any shorter--and with the season-ending championships getting more lucrative and prominent each year for those at the very top it isn't likely to--the least that can be done is grant players this one way of making matches shorter.