MELBOURNE — Aryna Sabalenka, the formidable two-time Australian Open champion, has added her powerful voice to a growing chorus of players calling for a significant rule change at the season's first Grand Slam. Following a wave of backlash from competitors and fans alike, Sabalenka has publicly stated that the tournament's controversial "10-point final set tiebreak" rule should be scrapped.
The rule, introduced in 2019, dictates that when a match reaches 6-6 in the final set, a first-to-10-point tiebreak is played instead of players continuing with traditional games. While designed to prevent marathon matches that could disrupt scheduling and player health, it has been criticized for injecting a sudden, lottery-like element into epic deciding sets, robbing contests of their traditional narrative and physical endurance test.
Sabalenka, who has won 22 WTA Tour-level singles titles including back-to-back crowns in Melbourne, made her position clear after navigating the early rounds of the 2024 tournament. "I really would prefer playing super long matches," she stated emphatically.
The Backlash and a "Different Mentality"
The Belarusian world No. 2 is not alone. The rule faced intense scrutiny during the 2023 event, most notably after Andy Murray's grueling second-round victory over Thanasi Kokkinakis concluded at 4:05 a.m. local time. While that match ended 7-5 in the fifth, it highlighted the extreme physical toll of long matches. Paradoxically, the 10-point tiebreak is meant to prevent such scenarios, but many argue it replaces one problem with another.
Sabalenka elaborated on her criticism, pointing to a fundamental shift in mindset it forces upon players. "I feel like when you're playing the 10-point tiebreak in the final set, it's just like you're going for all or nothing," she explained. "You're trying to be aggressive, maybe overhit, and it's just a different mentality."
This "different mentality" is at the heart of the debate. Proponents of traditional advantage sets believe the back-and-forth struggle to break serve, the building pressure game by game, and the sheer physical and mental stamina required are core to the drama of five-set tennis. The 10-point breaker, while tense, condenses this climax into a short, sharp shootout where a single mini-break can be decisive.
A Clash of Philosophies Across the Slams
The Australian Open's stance has created a disjointed experience across the four Grand Slams, each of which now employs a different final-set format:
- The Australian Open: 10-point tiebreak at 6-6 in the final set.
- The French Open: Advantage set continues indefinitely (as famously seen in the 2022 men's singles final).
- Wimbledon: 7-point tiebreak at 12-12 in the final set.
- The US Open: 7-point tiebreak at 6-6 in the final set.
This lack of uniformity is a point of contention for players, coaches, and purists. Sabalenka's call aligns her with a significant portion of the locker room that favors either the Wimbledon model—which allows for a longer set before the tiebreak—or a return to no tiebreak at all in the fifth. The Wimbledon compromise, introduced after the iconic 70-68 fifth set between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, is often cited as a more balanced solution.
The Toll of the "All or Nothing" Decider
For a power player like Sabalenka, whose game is built on aggressive shot-making, the critique is particularly insightful. In a long advantage set, her power can be a consistent weapon that wears down an opponent over time. In a truncated tiebreak, that same aggression can lead to unforced errors that decide the match in an instant, potentially rewarding a more conservative or lucky opponent.
Sabalenka's stance is also informed by her own championship pedigree. Winning the Australian Open twice under this rule does not equate to endorsing it. Her argument is about the integrity of the competition and the test a Grand Slam champion should face. "I would prefer to play long matches and to fight for the win," she reiterated, underscoring a competitor's desire to earn victory through sustained excellence, not a sprint.
The backlash has been palpable among fans on social media and in commentary boxes. Memorable epics like the 2009 Wimbledon final (Federer vs. Roddick, 16-14 in the fifth) or the 2012 Australian Open final (Djokovic vs. Nadal, 7-5 in the fifth) are etched in tennis history. The question posed by critics is whether a 10-point tiebreak could have prematurely ended such legendary battles, depriving the sport of its most iconic moments.
Tournament Officials and the Path Forward
Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley has previously defended the rule, citing player welfare and schedule certainty as paramount. The event is known for its extreme heat, and very long matches pose a significant health risk. Furthermore, television broadcasters and session ticket-holders require a degree of predictability in match length.
However, the vocal opposition from star players like Sabalenka, coupled with ongoing fan discontent, places pressure on Tennis Australia to review the policy. The rule was initially adopted as a "trial," but its permanence now seems to be the default position. Sabalenka's comments may fuel a push for a formal reassessment, potentially at the next Grand Slam board meeting.
Other solutions have been floated, including adopting the Wimbledon 12-12 model universally or introducing the 10-point breaker only after a certain number of games, like 9-9 or 10-10, to preserve more of the advantage-set drama. The goal for many is to find a middle ground that protects players without sacrificing the unique, grueling character of a Grand Slam final set.
Conclusion: A Champion's Plea for Tradition
Aryna Sabalenka's call to scrap the 10-point final set tiebreak is significant. It is not the complaint of a player who struggled under the rule, but a principled stance from a reigning champion about how the sport's biggest titles should be decided. Her argument centers on mentality, tradition, and the pure competitive desire to fight for victory without a truncated decider.
As the debate continues, the Australian Open finds itself at a crossroads. It must balance legitimate concerns over player health and event logistics with the fundamental sporting ethos that defines Grand Slam tennis. When a champion of Sabalenka's caliber states, "I really would prefer playing super long matches," it sends a powerful message that for many, the soul of the sport is found in those epic, enduring battles, not in a sudden-death tiebreak.
The backlash has been registered, and the ball is now in the tournament's court. Whether Tennis Australia will heed the calls of its players and fans and revert to a more traditional format, or hold firm with its modern innovation, remains one of the most intriguing off-court stories in the game today.