Wimbledon and those long, long fifth sets.

David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
So another Isner match goes looooooooooooooooooooooooong . . . in this case, 26-24 in the fifth. Apparently the SECOND-longest Wimbledon match ever, and Isner already holds the record for the longest.

FIFTY games in the fifth set. That's 7 or 8 sets.

There needs to be an Isner Rule.

Cap the 5th set. 10-10 or 12-12 or something like that and then play a tiebreak. There's no way either of those guys would be in prime shape for the final on Sunday after that, and Anderson had just survived the 13-11 5-setter against Federer. He's got to be hurting.
 
The players association should be involved (if they aren't already) because, as you clearly pointed out, it's grossly unfair and just plain punitive to both players, and cruel to the winner, and unfair to the person the winner would play next because they'll be facing a depleted player. It's just lose-lose-lose all the way around.

Another way to approach it might be a time cap. Say, at five hours, enough is enough. Either win by two games or, if it's tied, go to a tiebreaker at that point. That way it specifically protects the players while still allowing for all the drama we already have...
 
Barry_Green said:
The players association should be involved (if they aren't already)...
Click to expand...

Normally I'd agree, but in this case I don't think it's necessary. Or said another way, it's already been done. The Brits should get with the program as already defined by the Australian, US, and French opens. There's zero reason for Wimbledon to be different, other than the Brits just want it to be different.

BTW, same with the clothes. What's the point, really, of the silly "mostly white" rule? And no, I will not accept "we've always done it that way" (aka tradition) as an answer. Wimbledon should fall in line with the other Grand Slam events and quit trying to be "special". I mean really -- isn't holding one of the four Grand Slam tournaments special enough?

At least they folded on their insistence that tennis balls were white. If they can acknowledge that mistake and correct it, they can correct their scoring screwups and their clothing rules too. Just sayin'.
 
Bruce Watson said:
Normally I'd agree, but in this case I don't think it's necessary. Or said another way, it's already been done. The Brits should get with the program as already defined by the Australian, US, and French opens
Click to expand...
The Brits aren't the odd ones out here. They're the ones on the same page. The US Open is the only major that plays a fifth set tiebreaker. All the others play the fifth set the same as Wimbledon does.
 
I think Wimbledon is special, it's the most important tournament in tennis.

I appreciate the traditions, I also like the restricted ad and predominately white clothing rules.
I like the rule that players enter and leave together, and I appreciate that the tournament obeys the agreed upon curfew rules of the town.

But I agree that the final set should have a tie-break for practical reasons.
By the way they have already changed the tie-break rule once, it used to be 8-8 instead of 6-6 in all but the final set.

A fact that not everybody might know is that the slams are not controlled by the ATP and WTA organizations.
 
I wonder how bent out of shape they'd get if the players decided on their own to play a tiebreaker at 12-12, with the loser agreeing to resign. Just ignore the umpire, whatever penalties, who cares, and play their own tiebreaker anyway... ��
 
Barry_Green said:
I wonder how bent out of shape they'd get if the players decided on their own to play a tiebreaker at 12-12, with the loser agreeing to resign. Just ignore the umpire, whatever penalties, who cares, and play their own tiebreaker anyway... ��
Click to expand...
Well I suspect the All England Club won't be amused and would disqualify both players.
 
Barry_Green said:
I wonder how bent out of shape they'd get if the players decided on their own to play a tiebreaker at 12-12, with the loser agreeing to resign. Just ignore the umpire, whatever penalties, who cares, and play their own tiebreaker anyway... ��
Click to expand...

Well, who's going to be brave enough to do that? :)
 
Bruce Watson said:
Normally I'd agree, but in this case I don't think it's necessary. Or said another way, it's already been done. The Brits should get with the program as already defined by the Australian, US, and French opens. There's zero reason for Wimbledon to be different, other than the Brits just want it to be different.

BTW, same with the clothes. What's the point, really, of the silly "mostly white" rule? And no, I will not accept "we've always done it that way" (aka tradition) as an answer. Wimbledon should fall in line with the other Grand Slam events and quit trying to be "special". I mean really -- isn't holding one of the four Grand Slam tournaments special enough?

At least they folded on their insistence that tennis balls were white. If they can acknowledge that mistake and correct it, they can correct their scoring screwups and their clothing rules too. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Wimbledon IS special. It's the most prestigious tournament in the world for a reason, and a big part of the reason is the tradition.

Every other tournament flaunts its commercialism and its "modernness." It's nice to have one which stays traditional, yet still moves forward, honoring the tradition.
 
Barry_Green said:
The players association should be involved (if they aren't already) because, as you clearly pointed out, it's grossly unfair and just plain punitive to both players, and cruel to the winner, and unfair to the person the winner would play next because they'll be facing a depleted player. It's just lose-lose-lose all the way around.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no champ wants to win because the other player is wrecked. I imagine Federer felt that way last year.
 
But now that the final is set, it's kinda . . . meh. There's not that much at stake. Djokovic could win his 4th title, and there could be a new champ outside the "big four," and the first from South Africa, but, eh. That's just trivia.
 
David Jimerson said:
I disagree. Wimbledon IS special. It's the most prestigious tournament in the world for a reason, and a big part of the reason is the tradition.

Every other tournament flaunts its commercialism and its "modernness." It's nice to have one which stays traditional, yet still moves forward, honoring the tradition.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Barry_Green said:
The Brits aren't the odd ones out here. They're the ones on the same page. The US Open is the only major that plays a fifth set tiebreaker. All the others play the fifth set the same as Wimbledon does.
Click to expand...

Oh, ouch. Then the US open should change. A Grand Slam should be a Grand Slam.

So, is this just a problem at Wimbledon? I clearly can't remember seeing a long fifth set at the others. What is it about Wimbledon that "causes" this? Please don't tell me it's the grass; Wimbledon will never let go of the grass.
 
It's the grass. And no, they should never get rid of it, even though there was at least one other major that did convert away from grass.

That's why it's even more important for Wimbledon to adopt an "Isner Rule.". It's needed there a lot more than it is on the hard or clay courts.
 
I just looked it up, and Wimbledon seems to have the longest matches by hours played, definitely, but the other majors have their share of extended fifth sets too. For example, on the men's side, there was a 16-14 and an 18-16 at the French, and the Australian had a 22-20 just last year (2017), and they also had a 12-10 match.

On the women's, the Australian had a couple of 16-14 matches and an 11-9, and this year they had a 15-13 too; and the French had a 16-14 and at least three 10-8 matches. Now, it's not as much of an issue on the women's side because they play best of 3, but even then a 16-14 set has as many games in it as five bagel sets, so it's still going well beyond what the athletes expect and train for.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's the grass. And no, they should never get rid of it, even though there was at least one other major that did convert away from grass.

That's why it's even more important for Wimbledon to adopt an "Isner Rule.". It's needed there a lot more than it is on the hard or clay courts.
Click to expand...

Actually, all but the French used to be on grass. It was so wet at the US Open one year that they brought in helicopters to try to dry the courts by fanning them.

If Wimbledon ever went away from grass, it would lose everything.
 
Agreed that Wimbledon is special. It is the top of the top, and they really shouldn't change anything other than adopt the Isner Rule. Even though other tournaments have had extended fifth sets, they are rarely as long time-worn. The grass courts keep the players out there longer, so they should put a reasonable limit on it. For the most civilized tournament, you'd think they would want to minimize the torture the players go through.
 
David Jimerson said:
Well, who's going to be brave enough to do that? :)
Click to expand...

Thing is... After a certain point, they're pretty much guaranteed to lose in the next round anyway, right? So, what do they have to lose? Yes it would take bravery, or just being fed up enough; Rosa Parks didn't refuse to go to the back of the bus because she was brave, she said she did it because dammit, she was tired. (And no, I am not equating the seminal event of the civil Rights movement with some millionaire game players).
 
(actually Anderson got lucky that Djokovic and Nadal had their own extended fifth set match, it gave him an opportunity to be on more equal footing for the final.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top