Aydın Tiryaki

The world of tennis has undergone a fundamental shift in recent years, particularly regarding the rules applied in the final sets of Grand Slam tournaments. Not long ago, there was no “deciding game” in final sets; players continued an open-ended struggle until one achieved a two-game lead. The pinnacle of the physical and logistical crises created by this tradition undoubtedly occurred at Wimbledon in 2010. The historic match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut lasted 11 hours and 5 minutes, ending with a final set score of 70-68, pushing the limits of modern tennis.

Following such extreme examples, the Grand Slam Board made a historic decision in 2022 to protect player health and place broadcasting schedules on a rational plane. With this decision, a 10-point (Super Tie-break) system was adopted for final sets at the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the US Open, bringing all major tournaments to a common denominator. However, this now-standardized system still contains areas in need of improvement regarding spectator enjoyment and player effort, especially at moments that determine the fate of the match. In this article, I share the “Asymmetrical Tie-break” model I developed to increase the scale of justice and the quality of the viewing experience.

Analysis of the Current System and Its Deficiencies

Today, the standard tie-break rule applied when a set reaches 6-6 is based on the principle that the player who reaches 7 points first wins the set. In final sets that determine the match’s outcome, this threshold is set at 10 points. However, there is a significant asymmetry overlooked in the current system: a critical moment that is merely a “set point” for one player can be a “match point” for their opponent. At such a point, so close to the finish line, the fact that a factor of luck or a single simple error can abruptly end hours of struggle creates a sense of an “early finish.”

The Tiryaki Proposal: The Asymmetrical Tie-break Model

The model I have developed proposes determining the finishing threshold of a tie-break game asymmetrically, according to the “degree of criticality” the current score holds for the players. This model should be activated not only in final sets but at every tie-break stage where the match has the “potential to end.”

Operational Scenarios of the System:

• In Women’s Matches: If a player is leading 1-0 in sets and the second set goes to a tie-break, the target for the leading player is 10 points, while the target for the opponent trying to stay in the match is 7 points.
• In Men’s Matches (2-0 Scenario): If a player is leading 2-0 in sets and the third set goes to a tie-break, the target for the player looking to end the match is 10 points, while the target for the opponent trying to make it 2-1 and extend the match is 7 points.
• In Men’s Matches (2-1 Scenario): If a player is leading 2-1 in sets and the fourth set goes to a tie-break, the target for the player looking to end the match is 10 points, while the target for the opponent trying to make it 2-2 and force a final set is 7 points.

Why Asymmetrical Tie-break?

From an engineer’s perspective, this system offers three fundamental advantages:

1. Preservation of Spectator Pleasure and Excitement: Increasing the finishing threshold to 10 points in every tie-break where the match could potentially end extends those critical moments by 40%, taking the excitement to its peak.
2. Statistical Reality and “Match Point” Pressure: A tie-break played over 10 points does not always go to the tenth point. Generally, matches end with a 3 or 4-point difference. However, setting the system to 10 reveals the true quality of the player managing “match point” stress, while encouraging comebacks by giving their opponent a more reasonable target (7 points).
3. Justice and Balance: Offering a longer path to the player about to win and a shorter path to the player trying to hold on strengthens the dramatic structure of the game while preventing the match from fading out prematurely due to points gained by chance.

Conclusion: As of 2026, the world of tennis is transforming through technological officiating and tactical innovations. The 10-point system that replaced the “unlimited physical destruction” we learned from the Isner-Mahut match is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. The “Asymmetrical Tie-break” system I propose will make tennis a fairer and more impressive sport for both players and citizens (yurttaşlar) without disrupting the game’s mechanics, simply by making the “winning threshold” more qualified.

---

A Note on Methods and Tools: All observations, ideas, and solution proposals in this study are the author’s own. AI was utilized as an information source for researching and compiling relevant topics strictly based on the author’s inquiries, requests, and directions; additionally, it provided writing assistance during the drafting process. (The research-based compilation and English writing process of this text were supported by AI as a specialized assistant.)