When I went to sleep after 1am on Monday morning, the Wimbledon match between America’s John Isner and 12th seeded Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga was still going on.
In a fifth set lasting over two hours, the score was 17-all when I hit the pillow. It was both exciting and boring.
I later read that Tsonga had won the marathon final set 19-17 to meet another Frenchman, Richard Gasquet, in the next round.
Tsonga had won the marathon 6-7, 3-6, 7-6, 6-2, 19-17.
If the final set of 36 games looks extraordinary, then what about a final set of 138 spread over three days due to rains, also At Wimbledon? The 6’9” tall Isner is the common factor, however he was the winner of the 2010 super marathon.
So should tie-breakers be introduced in the final set?
On June 24, 2010, Isner took three days to defeat Frenchman Nicolas Mahut 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 70-68.
The match of 183 games took a total of 11 hours and five minutes from 22 to 24 June to complete. The 138-game fifth set alone lasted eight hours, 11 minutes.
Picking up at 59-59 in the fifth set on the third day, the match continued on serve with no break points until the American hit a backhand shot past the Frenchman to finish the contest in front of a packed audience.
This mega marathon is now referred to as ‘the endless match’.
In all 216 aces were hit, Isner 113 to Mahut’s 103. All three are records in a match.
After the torrid marathon, Isner, Mahut and chair umpire were eacg presented with crystal bowls and champagne flutes.
I also remember Britain’s Andy Murray, seeded seven, taking two days to beat Germany’s 28th seeded Philipp Kohlschreiber 3-6, 6-3, 6-3, 4-6, 12-10 in the 2014 French Open.
Tennis marathons were commoner before tie-breakers were introduced in all sets except the final set.
Although frustrating to the tournament organisers, the prolonged sets had that certain aura.
One of the most cliff-hanging marathons was played in Los Angeles in May 1949, when Ted Schroeder and Richard Falkenberg defeated the colourful Pancho Gonzales and H Stewart 36-34, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4, 19-17 in the South California Championships final.
The see-saw tussle between the Americans lasted four hours and 45 minutes, as 135 games were hotly contested. A world record? Not quite.
Richard Leach and Richard Dell overcame fellow Americans Tom Mozur and Lenny Schloss 3-6, 49-47, 22-20 at Newport, Rhode Island on August 18 to 19, 1967. That means 147 games. The 96-game second set was then the longest on record in senior tennis, according to Lance Tingay in The Guinness Book of Facts and Feats.
Of course, that was before the titanic Isner-Mahut final set.
The introduction of tie-breakers (apart from the final set) has reduced marathons. Should tie-breakers be also introduced in the final set to avoid prolonged matches and ever-lasting tension?
More tennis marathons will feature in Part 2.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Actually, it's only the US Open that has tie-breakers in the final set. Australian and French also play advantage final sets.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
I agree, Gary. In these colourful days, a player cannot wear a coloured shirt or skirt or even a black bra in Wimbledon!
Gary Peacock
Guest
CHANGE THE RULE!!!! This ain't your grandparents game! The other majors have left Wimbledon far behind. Even team sports have shootouts. If I'm a paying fan and could see a match conclude via a tie-breaker, I want to see its conclusion....not have it be called for darkness as they attempt to play as many as four more sets IN ONE! Time for stodgy old England to join the 21st Century. I mean, if you can leave the Euro-Union...............
Joe
Guest
No. The main feature about the sport is that the clock runs up and not down. These marathon matches (which surely are infrequent) test players' endurance - if you think they are boring then you don't appreciate the beauty of the sport. Surely you weren't bored during the Nadal v Djokovic 2012 Aus Open final which went for just under 6 hours.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
I think we should just simplify this and go the US Open way. Lets just have a tie break. It can be a heart break (as I have found out personally numerous times!), but these 36 game marathons in the middle of a tournament just don't make sense. What i think however should happen is that we have a final set tie break for all matches before the semi finals of Grand Slams. For semis and finals we revert back to a difference of two games.
clipper
Guest
That's correct - US Open is the only Slam to use a tie break on the final set, and did use a 'sudden death' 9 point tiebreak before that - i.e. the first to get to 5, even if both were on 4 all won. Still think the last set should go the distance - it's not as though it blows out very often, and the Isner - Mahut match was so out of the ordinary that it was big news. If drawn out last sets do become more common then a tie break option should be revisited.
Mark
Guest
I agree with Chris. Final set TB at 12-all.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
To some extent it's a bit like the negative of the argument you get after almost every major football tournament, where people are over penalty shoot-outs and lots of people would prefer teams to just keep playing until a result is reached, despite the drama and tension of a penalty shootout, it can still fill like a cop-out result. He we are having the reverse argument, trying to go towards that more penalty shoot-out feel.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think you'll find that it's only certain tournaments that don't have tie-breakers in the final set. Most of the smaller tournaments have all tie break sets I believe, and I'm pretty sure the US Open may actually have tie-break final sets, the only Grand Slam to do so. I could be wrong there, but I think it does. I think having an advantage final set is a good thing. it leads to the odd marathon match, but that's not a bad thing. Maybe you could cap the final set somewhere, like if it reaches 12-12 then you give up and have a tie-breaker. Let them go beyond just the basic 6-6 set.