Stupid Tie Break

While John Millman has himself to blame for tossing away a huge opportunity to win his match against Federer, the match itself was decided by a ridiculous tie break rule introduced by idiots unfortunately in charge of tennis at this level.

Tie breaks have been accepted for all but deciding sets for many years, and there has never been any good reason for introducing them in fifth sets for men or third sets for women at Grand Slam level. (Still, the US Open has done it, and in the past couple of years, Wimbledon and our Aussie Open have joined in, but with weird and hard to substantiate versions)

The argument referencing matches going to advantage for extreme lengths and a need to look after the players welfare is pathetic, as those matches represent about 0.3% of matches played at any major.

However, if the deciding sets are to be finished via a tie break, then why in the hell should it be a convoluted one, and not the same one used earlier in the match ? 

For Millman, if the conventional tie break had been employed, his 7-4 position statistically would have won him the match. Yes, things may have played out differently had the players known that the stupid tie break wasn’t to be used, but it does bear contemplation. 

Ruining the finish of excellent tennis contests by cobbled together means is an insult to the competitors and paying spectators.