Tweet
Are today's 5 set tennis matches "traditional"? 1 argument for pro tennis keeping 5 setters at majors is tradition.
But today's 5 setters are NOT like those of yore, they're equivalent to 6.5 set matches from as recently as 1999.
Why does this matter? 1) Other sports recognize they are dealing with a surge in repetitive stress injuries, witness the several star players that went down with non-contact injuries during the recently concluded NBA playoffs. One could fairly state the main determinate in who won the several series, conference championships, and the eventual title were who's star limped off on one leg. More in the next post 2) Media. I won't touch on this here, but tennis leaders seem to agree on very little except that the main impediment to pro tennis' growth is poor adoption by TV media, witness ESPN dropping both ATP and WTA.
From The Athletic: "Men’s slam matches are 25% longer"
"The 2001 “epic” Wimbledon final between Goran Ivanisevic and Pat Rafter, for instance, lasted 3hr 2min, despite stretching to 9-7 in the fifth set.
At the French Open last month, by contrast, Novak Djokovic’s straight-sets 7-6, 7-6, 6-2 win over Alejandro Davidovich Fokina lasted 3hr 36min. And sure, the Roland Garros clay has tended to make for longer matches than at Wimbledon, but matches at SW19 are not much quicker.
Andy Murray’s straight-sets 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 win over Novak Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final was eight minutes longer than the 2001 five-set 9-7 final. Similarly, while 2001 was only the seventh time in Wimbledon’s 124-year history that the men’s final had stretched to a fourth hour, eight of the last 15 — including all of the last three — have reached that mark."
1/2
But today's 5 setters are NOT like those of yore, they're equivalent to 6.5 set matches from as recently as 1999.
Why does this matter? 1) Other sports recognize they are dealing with a surge in repetitive stress injuries, witness the several star players that went down with non-contact injuries during the recently concluded NBA playoffs. One could fairly state the main determinate in who won the several series, conference championships, and the eventual title were who's star limped off on one leg. More in the next post 2) Media. I won't touch on this here, but tennis leaders seem to agree on very little except that the main impediment to pro tennis' growth is poor adoption by TV media, witness ESPN dropping both ATP and WTA.
From The Athletic: "Men’s slam matches are 25% longer"
"The 2001 “epic” Wimbledon final between Goran Ivanisevic and Pat Rafter, for instance, lasted 3hr 2min, despite stretching to 9-7 in the fifth set.
At the French Open last month, by contrast, Novak Djokovic’s straight-sets 7-6, 7-6, 6-2 win over Alejandro Davidovich Fokina lasted 3hr 36min. And sure, the Roland Garros clay has tended to make for longer matches than at Wimbledon, but matches at SW19 are not much quicker.
Andy Murray’s straight-sets 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 win over Novak Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final was eight minutes longer than the 2001 five-set 9-7 final. Similarly, while 2001 was only the seventh time in Wimbledon’s 124-year history that the men’s final had stretched to a fourth hour, eight of the last 15 — including all of the last three — have reached that mark."
1/2
Comment