By Kersi Meher-Homji
July 7th 2009 @ 12:23am
Related coverage
From here to eternity for Federer
Roger Federer, of Switzerland, kisses the championship trophy after winning the men's finals championship over Andy Murray, of Britain, at the U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York, Monday, Sept. 8, 2008. AP Photo/Charles Krupa
It’s all in the newspapers, in case you Sydney-siders did not stay awake until 4am on Monday morning. So I’m not going to repeat Roger Federer’s epic and record-breaking fifteenth Grand Slam title and echo what Sampras said about him being the greatest ever player.
I want to discuss the final set, which Federer won 16-14 against Andy Roddick, an heroic opponent.
This was the longest fifth set in a Wimbledon final.
The tense match lasted four hours and 18 minutes, each minute providing gripping top-class tennis drama in which Roddick made fewer errors.
On June 16th, I had posted on the Roar website a column titled Ten Tantalizing Bits of Tennis Trivia.
One of them was: the longest Wimbledon match lasted five hours and 12 minutes and included 112 games. This was in 1969, when ‘Pancho’ Gonzales had beaten fellow American Charles Passarell 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9.
I had added in that column that this record can only be broken if Wimbledon abolishes the tie-break rule.
A few hours after my column was posted, Chop corrected me on The Roar.
He commented, “As unlikely as it is, there could still be a long match because of the advantage set in the fifth set of men’s [match] and there could still be a score-line in the realms of 7-6, 6-7,7-6, 6-7, 31-29.”
Not that unlikely, Chop!
It almost happened in the Wimbledon final on Sunday. As tie-breakers are not allowed in the fifth set, the set went on and on to 16-14 and ended when Roddick was broken for the first time in his 38th game.
Had he not been broken, the final set could have gone on to 26-24 or 36-34, or even beyond. The mind boggles. Theoretically, there is no limit.
When there were no tie-breakers in any set, Richard Leach and Richard Dell out-fatigued fellow Americans Tom Mazur and Lenny Schloss 3-6, 49-47, 22-20 at New Port, Rhode Island on 18-19 August 1967.
The 96 game second set is perhaps still the longest on record in senior tennis.
The way Roddick and Federer were serving, this record could well have been broken. Improbable but not impossible.
And the match could have gone on for over six hours, another endurance record – as much for the spectators’ necks as for the players’ legs!
This brings me to this question. Why not have tie-breakers in the fifth set of Men’s and third set of Women’s matches?
If the person reaching seven points first in the fifth set and winning the match is too hit and miss, why not increase that target to 17?
Else it could well be from here to eternity as Federer aims to equal and then better the record of seven Wimbledon Men’s titles held jointly by Great Britain’s William Renshaw (1881-86 and 1889) and by Sampras from 1993-95 and 1997-2000.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(8)
Brett McKay said | July 7th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Kersi, I love the advantage set, I think it’s what makes Grand Slam tennis, and Wimbledon in particular, worth watching. The fifth set by advantage is perhaps tennis’ equivalent to Test cricket. It’s great to be able to win in straight sets, but you also need that ability to go the distance when required. It’s tennis’ ultimate test, no doubt…
sheek said | July 7th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Kersi,
A neighbour & good friend of mine has a father aged 91, who was a talented country circuit player back in the 1940s. The best players he ever competed against were Frank Sedgman & Rex Hartwig, leading Aussies from the 40s & 50s.
Listening to his stories of all the great Aussie & world players from the 1930s onwards is truly fascinating. He has given Roger Federer his seal of approval as probably the greatest male tennis player of all time, given the differences in surfaces, circumstances, equipment, quality of opposition, etc.
Incidentally, he rates Rod Laver as his best Aussie. Lew Hoad, with a less cavalier attitude, could have been “anything”. Ken Rosewall lacked the firepower to have competed at the absolute peak in the modern era, a bit like Lleyton Hewitt. While Roy Emerson was lucky to win so many GSs while leading professionals were banned in the 50s & 60s.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 7th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Hi Sheek,
Your neighbour’s dad must be a very good player to play against Sedgman and Hartwig. A compliment from him should please Roger Federer more than he has received from others.
My favourites are Ken Rosewall, Federer, ‘Pancho’ Gonzales and Lew Hoad among men, and Evonne Goolagong, Martina Navratilova and Serena Williams among women. I don’t say they were the greatest but I like them the best.
Chop said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Kersi,
Thanks for the mention
I disagree that we should think about changing the rule to allow tie breaks in the 5th set, in fact I think there should be some consideration for the exact opposite.
If you need to have tie breaks (which were only brought in for American TV) they should only be on the first 2 sets for mens and first set for ladies. Why you ask? I don’t think there should be a scenario where you can lose a grand slam match without losing your serve. There have been a few occasions (I can’t recall off the top of my head) where people have lost 7-6 7-6 7-6 which to me is a terrible way to loose, you have both won the same amount of service games and the contest should continue until that changes.
sheek said | July 7th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Kersi,
Apparently this 91 year old played to a high standard without becoming a state champion or higher. He played Hartwig in inter-country divisionals, & against Sedgman when the best country players came to the city.
However, he played both these guys when they were all in their late teens/early 20s, & before Hartwig & Sedgman went on to bigger & better things.
I find him a very interesting person to listen to. Last night his family came around for dinner, & apart from tennis, we covered cricket & rugby league; his first ever visit to the SCG in the 30s; country life in the 30s & 40s, & lots of other interesting things.
I’m always interested in how people actually lived in other times. The day to day stuff you don’t usually get in the history books. Stuff mostly forgotten today – radio entertainment instead of TV or computer; no phones; kindling heater instead of electricity or gas fed heater; basic electricity; ice deliveries (before fridges); milk & bread deliveries; entertainment was dances & movies, etc.
Fascinating stuff.
Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 7th 2009 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
Those were the days, Sheek. Please convey my regards to your neighbour’s 91 year-young father.
Brett, you say that the 5th set without tie-breaker is equivalent to Test cricket. But Test cricket has to finish in 5 days. Timeless cricket Tests in the past were disasters. Remember the timeless Test between South Africa and England at Durban in March 1939? It went on for 10 days (from 3 to 14 March, with no play on 11th and rest days on 5th and 12th) and still ended in a draw. Why? England had to catch a ship back home!
This was not the first timeless disaster. Earlier, the West Indies and England played each other for 10 days, from 3 to 12 April 1939 at Jamaica in the 4th and final Test and the Test was — you guessed it — a draw. 6th April was a rest day and there was no play on 11th and 12th. Still there were 7 days and no result.
As I wrote yesterday, theoretically the 5th set in tennis can go on and on. If Roddick was not broken in the 26th game, Roger and Andy would have been playing till now! Most unlikely of course but not impossible. There should be a limit at some stage.
Thanks for the smilie symbol, Chop!
Kersi Meher-Homji said | July 8th 2009 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Where does Australia’s Lleyton Hewitt stand as a great player today?
Roger Federer is considered by all experts as an all time great, by many as the greatest ever.
He beat Andy Roddick by a whisker in the Wimbledon 2009 final.
In the quarter final Roddick beat Hewitt in 5 exciting sets.
Logically, Hewitt ranks very high in the hierarchy, even today. Agree?
Chop said | July 8th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Kersi,
I think a healthy Lleyton Hewitt would probably still rank in the top 10 consistently. I think his problem is he needs lots of matches to keep his momentum up, but gets hurt that he doesn’t get the volume of matches he needs to maintain his standard.