Longest Tennis Match requires Rules Changes? Hogwash.
I haven’t watched Wimbledon in about 20 years. But last week I was transfixed by the first-round match between USA’s John Isner and France’s Nicolas Mahut. It took them parts of three days to complete it. For the tennis ignorants among you, men’s tennis generally is played to a best 3-of-5 match - first to win 3 sets wins the match. To win a set, you must be the first to win 6 games in that set, but you must win by 2. If the score is 6-5, they play an additional game. If someone wins 7-5, fine. But if it is then tied 6-6, it goes to a tiebreaker - where instead of 15, 30, 40, etc, the points are simply 1, 2, 3… up to 7… again, you must win by two. Wimbledon is one of the few tournaments that I know of that does *not* have a fifth-set tiebreaker. In other words, in any of the first four sets (regardless of whether it’ll end the match or not), they will go no higher than 7-6 in terms of games… and the 13th game is a tiebreaker. These can go long (see Borg/McEnroe almost 30 years ago now), and can be quite riveting - but they don’t go for… three days.
So in this first-round match, Isner and Mahmut went to a fifth set, tied 2-2 in the match. And then the fun began. The previous record for longest match was 118 games - total for the match. These two were tied at 59-59 (118 games) when play was suspended after the second day of their match. Finally on Day 3, Isner won the fifth set (and thus the match) 70-68. This is beyond mindboggling. The 183 games crushed the record, like when Babe Ruth was setting HR records back in the day. The scoreboard malfunctioned and shut off at one point in Day 2, either because (a) it too was exhausted, or (b) it was on strike demanding more pay. Not sure which.
Not surprisingly, many points in the fifth set were short - booming aces that the receiving player either (a) wouldn’t get to even at the beginning of the match, or (b) too tired to get to know. But… there were also some terrific efforts, mostly by Mahmut actually, to try to keep points alive. It was far from boring. And these two deserve all the credit in the world for refusing to lose, for so long.
And… predictably, some want to know change the rules at Wimbledon. Why?! The beauty of sport, any sport, is that you might bear witness to something truly rare and special. This was one of those days… er, three days. I struggle to believe another match will extend to 183 games - but if it does? As Tony the Tiger might opine, “Gr-r-r-r-r-reat!!!”
The place was packed on Day 2, on the most outside court IIRC (i.e. few people ever watch a match there unless they’re somehow related to one of the competitors) - and as the officials gathered with night falling to decide how much longer to go, the crowd started a raucous, “We want more!!! We want more!!!” Does this sound like a group of people that have had too *much* tennis?! When it was announced play would be suspended, and continued the following day - a third day… the crowd launched into raucous applause for the two competitors as they stumbled off the court. We should be so lucky as to get an match like that ever again!
Wimbledon is a Tennis Cathedral - and thankfully, they decided long ago to play their fifth sets different from most others. Because of that, many people were aware of - and indeed watched - a first-round match between two guys that most people didn’t even know were in the tournament. It is all good.
To those who feel it should be an impetus for change: Stop whining, and recognize how lucky you were to have had the opportunity to experience it.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:51 am
I agree, for the same reasons as in the Uruguay post; I’m a reactionary baseball fan who believes nothing should ever change. Now get off my lawn you kids!