A Cry Out for the
5th Set Breaker

Matt Cronin

Nicolas Mahut after: the greatest match ever or just the most boring?

There are many occasion throughout the sporting year that fans are blinded by giant headlines and rapid fire highlight reels covering supposedly special dramatic developments. This is part and parcel of living in a 24/7 mass media culture that attempts to feed the insatiable appetites of its spectacle addicted viewers and readers.

For a few days earlier this summer at Wimbledon, much of the world's sports eyes were fixated on the John Isner versus Nicolas Mahut marathon, a tiresome, over-hyped affair that lasted a record 11 hours and five minutes. Mercifully, the American pulled off two winners off the ground to break serve and finally come through 6-4 3-6 6-7 (7), 7-6 (3), 70-68.

Yes, in case you had forgotten, the fifth set score was 70-68. 138 games. The equivalent of 15 or more normal sets. Or put another way, the number games you'd be likely to play in 3 or more five set matches.

The biggest accomplishment: to stay standing.

How could this happen except in the bizarre and convoluted world of professional tennis? Was this the greatest match of all time, as some, including Mahut, called it? Or by far the all time most boring?

If you watched parts of this match, (and did anyone outside of the competitors' coaches, family and friends seriously watch the match in its entirety?) anything resembling those last two eye-popping points off the ground were infinitesimally few and far between. The only heroic efforts here by the players were simply to stay standing.

Let's be honest, this match was incredibly dull. It was a throwback to the days when analysts pleaded for a slowing of the grass in the 1980s and early 1990s, after watching service bombers Boris Becker, Kevin Curren, and Goran Ivanisevic, torch one serve after another.

"You combine the fact that we both served in this match exceptionally well, and that it's grass, you'll see long stretches of play without a break," Isner said afterwards.

What are the long term effects - on tennis and on the players?

Long stretches? That's a massive understatement. The fact was that getting even a routine return in play seemed impossible for either man.

So I say, bring on the fifth set tiebreaker, not just at Wimbledon but at the Australian and French as well. If matches like Isner vs. Mahut become the norm - or anything even remotely close--it will seriously damage the sport. Not to mention the potential hidden long term physical damage to the players themselves.

Extreme Serving = Extreme Boredom?

While there is massive disagreement as to the degree that new technologies really aid today's players, there are a few things that everyone can agree on: racket and string technology isn't getting worse, and the human race is gradually becoming taller and stronger.

Extreme serving leads to extreme boredom?

Isner is 6 foot 9 and serves out of a redwood tree. Ivo Karlovic, who is 6 foot 10, has also bored fans to tears at Wimbledon, especially in his mind numbing upset of Jo Tsonga in 2009. Young American Sam Querrey is 6 foot 6 and also makes his living hitting screaming service winners.

It's a rare man on the ATP Tour these days who is smaller than 6 feet. Simply put: tall and strong men find it easier to serve over the standard sized net and it takes a remarkable return of serve to counter this when the big guys are finding the corners with 120 mph plus rockets.

Neither Mahut nor Isner are competent returners, which is largely why from the start of the second set, when Mahut broke Isner, there wasn't another service break for 167 straight games. Think about how ludicrous that sounds.

This match featured a combined total of 215 aces, 117 above the previous record. But the more amazing statistic is the total of 515 unreturned serves. That's like 70 games worth of missed returns. No one knows officially whether that return miss statistic is a record, but it's hard to believe it's not and, like the aces, also by a huge margin.

Exactly how many rallies went beyond two shots? When I left Court 18 with the fifth set at 13-12 to go and handle another assignment, I turned to a journalist sitting beside me and remarked, "Text me if they actually play a point." Never did hear from him.

You could make a fine argument that if you put a non tennis player in the front row of Roger Federer versus Rafael Nadal match, you immediately make a rabid fan and even a committed recreational player out of him because of the brilliance of the exchanges. Conversely, if you put a non tennis fan in the front row of Wimbledon's Court 18 and force fed him more than 11 hours of Isner and Mahut, the result would more likely be a case of projectile vomiting.

Anyone remember that 5 hour plus Coretja win in Paris?

Serving fests between limited players do not bring more players or fans to the sport. If you look at the top 10 list of longest tennis matches ever, there were some excellent ones, including Fabrice Santoro's 6 hours and 33 minute victory over Arnaud Clement at the 2004 French Open; John McEnroe's 6 hours and 22 minute win over Mats Wilander in the 1982 Davis Cup; and Boris Becker's 6 hours and 21 minute victory over McEnroe in 1987 Davis Cup.

But then there are some awful, nearly unwatchable ones, like when Karlovic overcame Stepanek in 2009 Davis Cup, with the two combining for 96 aces. Or Alex Corretja's victory over Hernan Gumy at 1998 Roland Garros, where extreme pushing was at premium for five hours and 31 minutes. Or Greg Holmes 1989 Wimbledon win over Todd Witsken in five hours and 28 minutes, which hardly anyone recalls.

While I do think that five setters that stretch beyond 6-6 can have value, I can't accept that the fifth set should go on indefinitely. If not 6 all for the tibreaker, maybe the cut off is higher, but make it some number to insure that the winner has a least a sniff of chance to come out and win his next match.

Would Isner trade enhanced notoriety for a spot in the second week?

In private, I'll take an educated guess and say that now, after he's had a month to think about it, Isner would have rather played a fifth set breaker and won and advanced into the second week to confront eventual champion Nadal, where serious tennis fans would have gotten a better look at his real potential.

Instead, he got to read a top 10 list on the David Letterman Show, which increased his overall notoriety, but did little to advance his career goals. The endless match that he contested against Mahut did little to advance the goals of the sport either, which should be to keep improving its entertainment value and to attract more folks to play. The real effect, despite all the headlines, was likely the opposite.

So I say let's bring on the fifth set tiebreaker everywhere, in some shape or form, before it's too late.