by That question got a whole heap of airtime after – and during – last Friday’s marathon Wimbledon semi-final between Kevin Anderson and John Isner, which Anderson eventually won, 26-24 in the fifth set. The match took six hours and 36 minutes, and wreaked havoc on the schedule. The second semi between Djokovic and Nadal was billed as the main event, and it was a marvellous encounter when it finally got underway. Unfortunately that wasn’t until after 8pm, and thanks to the council-imposed curfew, the match couldn’t be completed in one go. It too went to a long fifth set, and the women’s final, which has started at 2pm on Saturday for as long as I can remember, was pushed back two hours.
People weren’t complaining only because the timetable was thrown out of whack. Some commenters were fed up with watching hours of so-called servebotting. Others thought it was inhuman that Anderson and Isner were kept out there so long, with no endpoint in sight, and whoever came through that match would be a wreck for the final. (For the first two sets against Djokovic, Anderson pretty much was.) Then there were debates about whether Djokovic and Nadal should have played part deux of their match under the roof on a sunny day in what is supposed to be an outdoor tournament. Even though neither of the men’s semi-finals will be forgotten by any self-respecting tennis fan in a long time, the lack of a tie-break in the fifth set did cause some major headaches.
What do I think? Well, honestly I’d be fine if the rules didn’t change. Anderson–Isner-style matchups in a grand slam semi are pretty rare. Near-seven-foot goliaths don’t get that far very often, and on this occasion both players saved match points on the way there. And for me, there’s something conceptually cool about a set that can feature theoretically unlimited games. I’ve always been a bit of a numbers geek, even as a kid, and I always got excited when I saw big yellow eights and nines and double-digit numbers on the right-hand side of the scoreboard. However, the current rules (tie-breaks at 6-6 in all sets except the last) were implemented at Wimbledon in 1979, since when tennis has become much more physical. A marathon five-setter takes a far greater toll on one’s body than it did back then. And perhaps the clincher for me is the fact that the game state at 24-24 in the Anderson–Isner match was exactly the same as at 4-4, two and a quarter hours earlier! Rightly or wrongly (and I would suggest wrongly), we no longer live in a world where that is OK.
The Wimbledon committee are probably a bunch of old blokes and the not-so-old Tim Henman, so there’s not much use predicting what they might do. But I have a sneaky suspicion they’ll change the rules in time for next year’s tournament, and in a typically British compromise, bring in tie-breaks at 12-12 in the fifth set. They might even exempt the final from the tie-break rule. I also expect the Australian and French Opens to do the same, or even go the whole hog and have tie-breaks at 6-6, à la Flushing Meadows. Third-set tie-breaks for the women will almost certainly come in too, for the sake of consistency, even though marathon women’s matches are a non-issue.
It’s interesting that Anderson–Isner appears to be a line in the sand. Here are some other matches I can remember that went very long in the fifth (reaching at least 12-12), but for whatever reason didn’t leave everyone clamouring for a tie-break:
1992 Wimbledon doubles final: John McEnroe and Michael Stich beat Jim Grabb and Richey Reneberg 19-17 in the fifth.
This was back in the day when top singles players – even former champions – played doubles. At 33, McEnroe didn’t inhabit the very top echelons anymore, but he had quite the tournament, reaching the semis of the singles and winning the doubles with Stich, the previous year’s singles champion. This match was played on the old No 1 court, and was finished on the Monday, having been suspended at 13-13 the night before due to bad light. I don’t remember any complaints about the suspension or the length of the match, but McEnroe always drew the crowds, and at any rate, ’92 was a much calmer time when nobody could tweet to the @Wimbledon account that it was fucking bullshit.
1997 Wimbledon third round: Tim Henman beat Paul Haarhuis 14-12 in the fifth.
The first week of Wimbledon had been ravaged by rain, so they needed to play serious catch-up. This match, therefore, was played on the Middle Sunday, in a football-style atmosphere. I felt sorry for Haarhuis, who served for the match in the fifth set but double-faulted on match point. No complaints from the crowd, who once Henman had finally got over the line, probably thought it was “coming home”.
1998 Wimbledon semi-final: Goran Ivanisevic beat Richard Krajicek 15-13 in the fifth.
This is the closest precedent to last Friday’s marathon semi. Goran missed match points on his own serve in the fourth set, and in the fifth a holding pattern, quite literally, developed. In truth it wasn’t much fun, and just like last Friday, the crowd were eagerly anticipating the second semi-final, in this case between Henman and Pete Sampras. Had the match gone on much longer, and had it taken place in Twitterworld, there would surely have been calls for tie-breaks. For the record, Tiger Tim played a great match against Sampras, but in the end the great champion just had an extra gear.
2000 Wimbledon third round: Mark Philippoussis beat Sjeng Schalken 20-18 in the fifth.
I watched this in Penang with my grandmother. It was played on an outside court and took five hours in total. “Scud”, or “the Poo”, recovered from this ordeal to beat Henman in round four, again in five sets.
2003 Australian Open quarter-final: Andy Roddick beat Younes El Aynaoui 21-19 in the fifth.
The crowd really warmed to El Aynaoui; they hadn’t expected him to push Roddick so hard. Unusually, Roddick broke in the extended final set, but in a twist, was broken straight back. This added drama, plus the fact that it was a night session with no matches to follow, helped this match attain classic status. I don’t remember any tie-break talk.
2009 Wimbledon final: Roger Federer beat Andy Roddick 16-14 in the fifth.
I didn’t see this match. There was a lot on the line here, not least Federer’s legacy. Could he break Sampras’s record of 14 grand slams? With that in mind, and it being the final, nobody was particularly bothered that it took a while.
2010 Wimbledon first round: John Isner beat Nicolas Mahut 70-68 in the fifth.
70-68. Eleven hours. Jaw-dropping stuff. So why were there fewer calls for tie-breaks as a result of this match? A few reasons. One, the match reached such unprecedented proportions that people were in awe of it. Two, not many people actually watched all those aces and service winners. They were going about their everyday business while this animal, this colossal thing, was prowling in the background. Three, neither player was a real contender for the later stages. It didn’t have much bearing on the rest of the tournament. Four, we hadn’t quite entered the age of intense polarisation, where something as unimportant as a tennis match can cause people to lose their shit on social media.
It was perhaps because of Isner’s match with Mahut that his encounter with Anderson provoked such negative reactions. Oh no, it’s Isner again! Please make it stop! And unlike eight years ago, millions of prime-time eyeballs were directed at it.
