Never mind the quality, feel the length.

Some may recognise I've slightly adapted the title of an old TV series about two dodgy tailors. The TV theme isnt entirely frivolous though, because once the euphoria of AO '11 dies down, it'll be TV that starts to raise questions about the way the game is going.

The 2011 US Open set, we thought, new standards for length and sheer physical stress (in just 4 sets) but it's not outlasted one Slam before being hugely surpassed. Of course, when the average men's final takes 2-3 hours, the odd epic stands tall and attracts, but it looks like we may be set for this kind of thing to become the norm. At that point TV is going to step in and explain that they just can't accommodate it (especially in the US where 6 hours between a Serb and a Spaniard just isn't going to do it).

I also think that after the novelty fades fans are going to question the experience. I can't be as sure of that as I am about TV but I think it'll go that way. You can only be told so many times that your 6 hours was privileged in witnessing the greatest match ever.

So look out for lots of wrong answers; 5th set tbs (wouldn't have helped today though), 5-5 tbs, no-advantage games, etc. Of course they might just turn up the right answers and bring attacking net play back to the game. Wouldn't count on that though, I think the corruption of the rules is more likely.

bogbrush the first three sets were not exactly riveting viewing but from the middle of the fourth set (from memory) just before the roof was closed was compulsory viewing.

One of the greatest matches ever? From purely the tennis purist viewpoint maybe not as Novak often looked tired and Nadal made loads of UE by taking the game to him.

But for drama , the way both of them raised their games towards the end - especially Novak given how tired he must have been and atmosphere then it was right up there with the very best.

Yes, and would you like tt to be the norm for quarters, semis and finals? Its coming.

TV will stop it because its simply not ommercially viable in the long term

I'm sure a disruptive player will break through and change the game again.

Well bogbrush they could skip the first three sets and say well if it's all over then it was totally one -sided anyway.

I do take your point about American TV. Six hours every time given to tennis? It would be put on some very expensive cable channel no doubt.

reckoner wrote:I'm sure a disruptive player will break through and change the game again.

i think the problem is if the current court conditions prevail the only disruptive player will have to be someone who serves harder, runs faster and hits harder, a la Djokovic. Djokovic is the disruptive player.

At that point TV is going to step in and explain that they just can't accommodate it (especially in the US where 6 hours between a Serb and a Spaniard just isn't going to do it).

_____________________________

Not sure whether I agree or not about how important this is but this is an extremely interesting point. If the US TV were to encourage the tournament (US Open) to encourage the umpires to crack down on time between points, they could cut 5 or 10% off the match length. Of course, the players could respond by falling about the court with cramp and then blaming everyone else.

Is the US TV were to encourage the US Open to speed up the court and differentiate itself from the other slams, that would be cool.

I do think the US TV requirements will only really affect the US Open though rather than the whole tour. Tennis is not really a big deal in the US. For sure they like to watch the US Open and Wimbledon but that's about it. FO not really, OZ the semis and final are on during the night. I've been in the States the last couple of years during IW and Miami, for instance. There is extremely little interest and I couldn't find the matches on free hotel TV either. Walking through airports and bars during the matches, they were not on. Basketball instead.

Another possibility is court conditions say the same but the power and acccuracy of the players goes on a level so that people can hit winners more on this surface, and aggressive play returns. But that would take an extremely long time, so maybe they need to increase court speeds at least a little bit. Please!

Djoko disruptive? He is a master copy of Nadal with slight tweaking in sense of not killing his body till 2011, while Nadal has abused it a few years longer than Djoko.

Lets see how Djoko's body keeps this year.

This is not tennis, this is who lasts longer and makes fewer UE.

it is disruptive to the duopoly.

bogbrush wrote:
The 2011 US Open set, we thought, new standards for length and sheer physical stress (in just 4 sets) but it's not outlasted one Slam before being hugely surpassed. Of course, when the average men's final takes 2-3 hours, the odd epic stands tall and attracts, but it looks like we may be set for this kind of thing to become the norm. At that point TV is going to step in and explain that they just can't accommodate it (especially in the US where 6 hours between a Serb and a Spaniard just isn't going to do it).

My hopes are on the American in this case, they're usually not keen on sessions this long. But have you listened to the KIA CEO's speech today? He said that matches like these are the reason tennis popularity is growing in Asia. So i fear the worst. Sponsors like these do have to say something.
On the other hand: on Dutch television the match was disrupted several times for sports like cyclecross, waterpolo and speedskating. Even though tennis is the second sport of Holland. That's a sign. The dynamics of the game has changed a great deal, we're now looking at 3 different replays between each and very point and still there's enough time left to witness half of the pre-service routines of these men.
I can understand for many hardcore tennis fans this was a spectacular match i'm sure many not so fanatic viewers did not have the patience to watch this match throughout.

Indeed, and believe it or not but it's the casual viewer who will decide this, not the fans.

Ladies Final: 6-3 6-0 lasting 1 hour 22 minutes.

Mens Final: 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-5 lasting 5 hours 53 minutes.

Apparently television channels have already suggested that grand slam tournaments be reduced to a best of three set format rather than a best of five set format, due to the problems they have in scheduling the matches.

Henman Bill wrote:At that point TV is going to step in and explain that they just can't accommodate it (especially in the US where 6 hours between a Serb and a Spaniard just isn't going to do it).

_____________________________

Not sure whether I agree or not about how important this is but this is an extremely interesting point. If the US TV were to encourage the tournament (US Open) to encourage the umpires to crack down on time between points, they could cut 5 or 10% off the match length. Of course, the players could respond by falling about the court with cramp and then blaming everyone else.

Is the US TV were to encourage the US Open to speed up the court and differentiate itself from the other slams, that would be cool.

I do think the US TV requirements will only really affect the US Open though rather than the whole tour. ...

They have already stepped in with the final set tie-breaker, the US Open is the only slam that has a tie-breaker in the fifth set. Wimbledon could have followed suit after the "debacle" of the Isner-Mahut 2010 first round match - but they didn't because they wanted to maintain the "purity" of the sport. Isner was of course crushed in the second round.

Nore Staat wrote:Apparently television channels have already suggested that grand slam tournaments be reduced to a best of three set format rather than a best of five set format, due to the problems they have in scheduling the matches.

TV has got power, but not that much. And TV is an open market, even if one channel demands that, another might not and win the contract. That will never happen, certainly not for every round.

Regarding the women's match, maybe best of 5 sets would be appropriate. Sometimes there are 1-sided finals where it might not work, but the women's final can be very short for a show piece occassion.

Regarding Isner-Mahut and TBs in general, I actually believe that having one slam with final set TB at 6-6 and three where they carry on after that score is the right balance.

Personally, I would favour the introduction of final set tiebreaks at French Open, Wimbledon and Australian open too. Definately not at 6-6, but perhaps at 9-9, 19-19, or somewhere in between. To stop matches getting ridiculous and going on to 2-3 days and going on into the middle of the night and really causing havoc not just with TV schedules but with the schedules of people attending and watching the matches. Very few matches go past 9-9 or 19-19 anyway so not suggesting much of a change.

Actually less of an issue than it used to be. I could be wrong but I seem to recall 10-8s or 14-12s being more common say at Wimbledon than they are now because in the 90s it was more serve dominated. Having a tiebreak at 9-9 or 19-19 would also stop some matches being stopped by bad light and having to continue the next day without a final result for the spectactors there. Especially an issue for outdoor courts and smaller tournaments where they don't have lights.

This is not tennis, this is who lasts longer and makes fewer UE.
_____________________________________________________________

Oh ye sure this is not tennis, because no-one ever has hit returns like Djokovic. Doh...

Nore Staat wrote:Ladies Final: 6-3 6-0 lasting 1 hour 22 minutes.

Mens Final: 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-5 lasting 5 hours 53 minutes.

Did they get the same prize money ?

I watched the whole match from beginning to end. With a few tea breaks in between, but I saw the majority of the match.

Pretty boring for 3 hrs, not wholly, but it did become predictable tennis for 3 sets.

The best was kept for the last, and this would never have happened if it had been 3 sets only. Just think of the Murray/Djoko match, Andy would have won and gone through, so its not such a good idea to change the recipe IMO.

TV will never play a role in changing the sets or tie break situation. They tried that in America with the World cup, wanting it to be 4 quarters and not two halves. They get enough adverts in between games and between matches. Scheduling live sport is never easy. The Super Bowl almost always goes over schedule, big time, but no-one moans about that.

Can't see it happening as the players council will have a huge say in that as well as the event organisers.

If they did change it, then Murray would win every slam for the next ten years.

erictheblueuk wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Ladies Final: 6-3 6-0 lasting 1 hour 22 minutes.

Mens Final: 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-5 lasting 5 hours 53 minutes.

Did they get the same prize money ?

What do you think?

erictheblueuk wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Ladies Final: 6-3 6-0 lasting 1 hour 22 minutes.

Mens Final: 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(5), 7-5 lasting 5 hours 53 minutes.

Did they get the same prize money ?

The women getting the same prize money at majors for a lot fewer sets is obscene. The fact is they can earn even more as they can enter the doubles too. This is just not feasible for the top men players.