F7A30FED-A6B6-4C6C-A1F1-C4F7F0EB8E3C
By Richard Pagliaro
© Fred Mullane and Susan Mullane/Camerawork USA
(June 24, 2010) Parting can be painful, but what's the best way to broker a tennis break up?
John Isner and Nicolas Mahut collaborated on a timeless tennis saga that generated international attention as the longest match in tennis history. Isner's backhand pass down the line on his fifth match point finally brought the curtain down on classic encounter that spanned 11 hours, 5 minutes with Isner transforming exhaustion to elation in earning a 6-4, 3-6, 6-7(7), 7-6(3), 70-68 epic encounter over French qualifier Nicolas Mahut.
The pastoral atmosphere of the All England's lawns lends itself to a rule that renders the clock obsolete. A nation where cricket matches can take days to conclude, the final set at Wimbledon is played out in its entirety though Isner found himself wishing for a tie breaker at one point.
"Without a doubt. (At) 20-all yesterday I was thinking that," Isner said.
Yet after finishing this titantic tug of war to earn his first career Wimbledon victory in a gut-wrenching match that could leave him running on fumes for round two, Isner does not believe Wimbledon should adopt a fifth-set tie breaker.
"No, I think you should play it out," Isner said.
But will he feel the same way if he falls from fatigue in round two?
Unlike Wimbledon, the US Open takes a Times Square approach to tennis conclusions: at 6-all in the fifth set the outcome is decided in a New York minute as players square off in a decisive tie breaker.
Some view the historic, two-day fifth set Isner and Mahut produced as the ultimately enthralling tennis theater that compels the rest of the sporting world — from World Cup competitors in South Arica to the LA Lakers players' at a team meeting to members of the New York Mets in the Citifield — to immediately invest their own time and attention to tennis.
Others argue, playing out the final set is merely a tennis filibuster, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing more than a means of draining drama by spreading it out over an extended fifth set and diminishing the strength and stamina of the player who prevails in subsequent rounds.
Former Wimbledon champion Maria Sharapova suggested that while she admires the resolve and resilience of Isner and Mahut, that extensive fifth-set fight could feel like a trip to a tennis torture chamber.
"I'd be checking myself into the local hospital at that point," Sharapova said. "It's pretty incredible what they've done. I think at this point maybe the rules will be changed at a certain point you're going to have to play a tiebreaker. It's an amazing effort at that point in the match to come out and to be able to hit such powerful strokes and serves and just keep doing it over and over. But over a certain period of time, I think it takes a toll on your body mentally and physically. I mean, probably the rule will change, but you never know."
Supporters of the current rule argue it is precisely what makes tennis special. You cannot run out the clock at Wimbledon and playing out the final set not only adheres to a tennis tradition it brings factors like fitness, fortitude and cost to the forefront whereas a fifth-set tiebreaker can transform a creative tennis essay test into a multiple-choice crap shoot where an incorrect call or let cord can unfairly alter the outcome of a match.
Opponents argue that it makes no sense to play a match with two sets of rules.
Should there be a rule change?
Wimbledon semifinalist Andy Murray says a faster finish doesn't necessarily increase the drama and asserts Wimbledon should not adopt a fifth-set tie breaker, particularly since the Isner-Mahut drama put tennis back in the spotlight on the global stage.
"Like everybody has been saying, it will never happen again unless they play next year maybe," Murray said. "But, no, I think the rules here are very good. They work well. You know, it was a huge, huge story for everybody yesterday and really good for the sport. So keep it as it is."