Is six-hour tennis bad?

July 14, 2018 5:37 AM

If it was the US Open in New York, no problem, we let Djokovic and Nadal run away until sunrise, then we all take dinner for eggs and potatoes. on the way to the house.

But Wimbledon has a 23 hours. curfew

So when 23 o'clock. rolled, Djoko and Rafa were kicked like barbels at the last call – they will resume here Saturday at 13h. local time (8 am ET). This will be followed by the women's final between

Serena Williams

and

Angelique Kerber,

who must watch the matches of these absurd men and roll their eyes.

Really, the story here is the Cuckoopers Anderson-Isner match, which lasted longer than "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II" combined and ended with Anderson taking the fifth set 26-24.

That's right: no decisive game. You have to win the last set of two games at Wimbledon. The last set between Anderson and Isner lasted two hours, 50 minutes. You can fly from Philadelphia to Miami in less than that.

Even before the end, you could hear panicked tennis voices: Was it bad for tennis?

But more important: Does male tennis have to give up the ghost of tradition and use a tie-break fifth set?

Wimbledon is not the only major tournament to do it. The format of the fifth set without tie-break is also used by the French and Australian Opens. The US Open mercilessly uses a break in equality, because New Yorkers have places to be. (The U.S. Open also has no curfew, as New Yorkers are insomniac insane.)

After their match, the exhausted Isner and Anderson made a call for change. They agreed that all men's tennis should use a tie-break fifth set, for the sake of the sport.

To be clear: this is the reasonable shot here, for the player's health and for logistical reasons. Anderson could wake up Saturday feeling like he had traveled all over the Appalachian Trail with John Isner on his back. Then he must go out Sunday and face Djokovic or Nadal. Not funny.

Of course, Djokovic and Nadal are now crammed too, who knows how long they will play when they resume Saturday (Djokovic leads two sets to one). The delay is not optimal for these two champions; this is not optimal for people who have tickets for Friday games; I'm sure it burns TV partners too.

But still …

I appreciate that tennis is capable of this madness. Is it a terrible thing to admit? I like that the men's tournament at Wimbledon is a bit derailed. Occasional screwing is part of what makes tennis different.

I also think that a good deal of the objection to the game of yesterday was stylistic. Anderson-Isner was not exactly a clbadic of all time. I think that Anderson and Isner would admit it.

This is not a shot at one or the other player. They are both talented, the top 10 talents, but they are large men who arm heavy services and who are unlikely to get breaking points at the other end. I do not think anyone predicted half past six, but these guys are known to end up in this sort of entanglement. Anderson pulled out

Roger Federer

with a 13-11 fifth set in the neighborhoods Wednesday.

And Isner, of course, participated in the epic epic: a 2010 match with

Nicolas Mahut

which lasted 11 hours, five minutes and lasted more than three days, with Isner winning the last set 70-68.

Really. Compared to Isner-Mahut, Isner-Anderson is a Ramones song.

No one is eager to watch another 11-hour extravaganza. But tennis fans love a lot of long five sets. It's part of the sport culture – the test of endurance athletes and the public, how a long match can unfold as a novel.

Believe me: if Djokovic and Nadal go at six-thirty and finish on the 26th to the 24th, tennis fans will line up to do documentaries and write scripts. Both men played in a five-hour, 53-minute final in Australia, which is regularly cited as one of the best male games of all time.

The reason? They are all timers. They play fluid, agile, often beautiful tennis all terrain.

Were there any appeals for even breaking ties after Nadal and Federer pbaded the five sets of regulations in 2008? Or McEnroe and Borg in 1980?

Once again, I understand why tie-breaks in the fifth set make sense. It's human. This makes tournaments, TV partners, fans and the players themselves easier.

But I think tennis should hang on to its idiosyncrasies. I like the five sets without tie-break in the same way that I love the red clay of Roland Garros and the way the zero calls "love". Oddities like these may not make much sense in 2018, but it's okay.

we are talking about three tournaments here! This is not an epidemic. Do you know how much of the 125 men's singles matches at Wimbledon this year have gone over 6-6 in the fifth set? Five. Five out of 125.

Do you know how much stretched beyond 6-6 in the fifth set in 2017? Four. Madness like Anderson-Isner is exceptional. It is not really the end of the world.

You: Do not you always have baseball to speed up?

Me: Shhhh. Let me embrace my hypocrisy.

I say that as a tennis fan. Do not let us go after a game. Wimbledon should hang on what he has.

Keep the tennis weird.

Write to Jason Gay at [email protected]