Last weekend, I played my first real doubles short-set tiebreak game at the NTRP 18+ Doubles National Championships. After the first two points, my partner and I were set to have me serve the third. It immediately became apparent that the two teams did not share the same understanding of whether my partner or I was to serve in that situation.
This was my first time directly experiencing on-court communication with officials as we sorted out the proper way to proceed in this situation. The conversations were illuminating. I need to be crystal clear that the issues I am describing in this post should not be regarded as criticism of any individual, USTA official, or administrator. Rather, this speaks to the systemic issues at the root of the ongoing confusion over the implementation of the tiebreak game in this format.
Communication Challenges
One of the greatest mysteries to me is why the inherent issues with the short-set tiebreak game have not been percolating up through the officiating side of the organization. After my experiences on the court last weekend, I have become convinced that it is fundamentally a communication problem. The roving umpire who initially came to the court first interpreted the dispute between the teams as a matter of which team was to serve the next point rather than which player in the doubles partnership. When the tournament referee was summoned, he also initially misunderstood the root of the debate.
From this experience, augmented by additional observation, I believe that when officials have been mediating disputes between players, they have been interpreting the questions as player confusion over the format. If anything has bubbled up through the officiating side of the organization, it is that the players do not understand how to play it. In fact, there is truth behind that idea. However, that also likely obscures the legitimate complaints that there are issues with the format itself.
Stepping back for a moment, this is year six that the NTRP National Championships have used the short-set format. The fact that there is still perceived player confusion over the tiebreak game is a legitimate and powerful argument that it might be time to consider an alternative. In fact, I think that this is the primary consideration that the USTA may ultimately act upon, if they eventually decide to make a change. It is warranted on the basis of that alone.
Players are executing the tiebreak game inconsistently. This is something that does not show up unless someone independently monitors what is actually occurring during matches. Additionally, officials are not providing consistent guidance to players as questions arise. Again, that will not show up unless someone is actively monitoring matches along with the guidance rendered.
I suspect that rules grievances are rarely filed by the winner of a match. Consequently, it is all too easy for the complaints of people who believe they have suffered a competitive inequity as sour grapes or a matter of simply not understanding the rules. Undoubtedly some of the complaints received are exactly that.
It’s Not Just Me
After the controversial tiebreak game that I played at the tournament last weekend, another team happened to be at the tournament desk complaining about the inequity of service ends in their own match. What ensued was a litany of miscommunication.
For example, the suggestion that the Coman approach would be more equitable was met with a response that Coman is used in USTA League only. That is flat-out wrong. Coman is codified in the USTA Friend at Court and is routinely used in USTA Adult tournaments. In my home Section of Texas, that tiebreak format is exclusively used in NTRP tournaments.
Additionally, the desk volunteer dismissed their complaints about having to serve from a new end during the tiebreak game. The reason cited was that players have to do that all the time in the standard (non-Coman) format. That misses the point. In the standard tiebreak game, all players have to play serves from both ends. In the short-set tiebreak format, only one team has to make the switch, and it impacts every single serve delivered by that unlucky team.
It is doubtful that their legitimate feedback was flowed up past the tournament desk. Players are complaining about the same issues that I have been surfacing ever since the format was unveiled. Those complaints are falling on deaf ears at the grassroots level.
How It Ultimately Played Out
In my match’s controversial tiebreak game, neither the roving official nor the referee carried the printed rules sheet containing the fateful phrase “Maintain service order.” Additionally, once they understood the nature of the dispute, they clearly wanted a definitive reference. Ultimately, that was provided by the USTA representative onsite.
My partner eventually served the next two points. We went on to win the tiebreak game 5-0. Consequently, I never served at all in that tie-break game. It wasn’t an intentional disruption on our part, but rather a desire to correctly implement the format in good faith. However, once the conflict arose, I was happy to experience first-hand conversations with the officials. It was illuminating.
A tiebreak game in the third set ultimately decided our match in the subsequent round as well. In that case, the other team was on the hook to serve the 3rd point. As we headed into the tiebreaker, my partner and I agreed that we didn’t care who served for the other team and that we would support however they wanted to play it without comment. We also won that breaker 5-0.
Better Luck Next Year?
Maintaining order of service in the short-set tiebreak game creates a competitive inequity. However, maintaining consistent service ends is also less than perfect because it can also create a disparity if one server is much stronger than the other. This will be a significant concern if the USTA adds mixed doubles divisions next year without modification to the format. That rabbit trail is a post for another day.
The past 6 years have demonstrated that neither the players nor the officials have a consistent understanding of the rules for this niche tiebreak game. Additionally, the disparities are readily apparent for anyone who bothers to think it through. I do believe that the USTA is currently considering transitioning to a more equitable format for next year. It’s about time.
Hopefully, the 2024 NTRP Fact Sheet will read “Coman tiebreaker first to 7.” Problem solved. The solution is really that easy.
- Friend at Court: The Handbook of Tennis Rules and Regulations, USTA, 2023
- 2023 NTRP National Championships Fact Sheet, USTA, viewed April 22, 2023.
I played a fast4 tourney this past weekend and the roving official informed my opponent and I that all tiebreakers, both 5 point and 7 point, would be Coman format. This is unwelcomed by most singles players as a waste of time switching sides but I understand why it should be the format for doubles.
It feels unfair no matter how you slice it. If you disrupt serve order in the middle of a set, it feels wrong. If you have to serve on the other side from where you have been, it feels wrong. I don’t see a solution besides a change in format. We’re already playing short sets – you’d think they’d be pro longer tiebreakers than normal. Not shorter.
Agreed. Another change that I have lobbied directly for that I don’t think I have ever written about is a 10-minute warm-up when playing short sets. It really makes sense for short-format tournaments that don’t provide warm-up courts. The 10-minute warmup is routinely used in senior age-group open tennis. The USTA likes the shortened format because it reduces court capacity, which is a consideration for large events like this. They are not enthusiastic about granting 10 minutes in the warm-up because that is like an extra match of court time across every ~5 matches.
I have another full weekend of posts from the tournament coming up next weekend.