This year’s Wimbledon Championships has been one filled with drama. From the longest men’s semi-final match of all time to Serena Williams’ impressive comeback. It will be a tournament that many will remember for years, but there are some topics that needs to be looked at.
1) The best-of-five format without a final set tiebreak needs to go. Now.
I could rant for thousands of words regarding all the reasons why the over six-and-a-half hour semifinal between Kevin Anderson and John Isner was utterly absurd. But at 15-15 in the fifth set, Patrick McEnroe summed up the situation perfectly on ESPN in the US:
“Maybe, just maybe this will be the match that gets the rule changed … There needs to be a tiebreak at some point in a final set. For the crowd, for these players, for you watching at home, for the other players [Nadal and Djokovic] … For the good of the game is the bottom line.”
2) Gender equality in court assignments has improved, but we’re not fully there yet.
Following this year’s Australian Open, I was critical of Tennis Australia for not providing the women’s matches the same platform as the men’s. For most of this year’s Wimbledon, I actually thought the AELTC did a good job in showing equality in their show court assignments. Yes, the “Manic Monday” schedule featured four men’s matches between Centre Court and No.1 Court, with the women only getting two spots. But with so many top women’s seeds not even making the second week, there were more men’s matches deserving of a show court assignment on that particular day. I’m sure fans with show court tickets would have been frustrated if any of those four men’s matches were played elsewhere. Where things became really complicated for the AELTC was when the men’s semifinals were not completed on Friday. Nadal and Djokovic were brought back the next day with a 1:00pm start, which delayed the women’s championship match by over two hours. While there was no perfect solution here, the tournament should have played the women’s final first, and waited to have Nadal and Djokovic play thereafter. That would have been far from ideal for the winner of Nadal and Djokovic, having to come back less than 24 hours later to play the final, but the men’s semifinals should not trump the women’s final. That decision however was not as bad as the tournament bumping the women’s doubles final to No.1 Court, while the men’s doubles final played out on Centre Court. I realize there wasn’t enough time to play both on Centre, and the men’s double final actually needed the roof closed to finish the fifth set, but bumping the women from Centre Court altogether was a really bad look for the tournament. If both doubles finals couldn’t be completed on Centre, then they both should have moved to No.1 Court. And you know how all of this could have been avoided? See point #1.
3) All things considered, tennis continues to be way ahead of the curve in terms of equality.
No other major sport showcases the men and women side-by-side on the same stage. The World Cup doesn’t feature the women with the men. You don’t see the WNBA playing alongside the NBA. Of course we should still strive for full equality in the sport, but the tennis world deserves credit for being a progressive leader in this way.
4) How can officials miss three calls on one shot?
During Djokovic’s third round match against Kyle Edmund, Novak had break point in the fourth set, and was just a few games away from victory. Djokovic hit a drop shot, and as Edmund ran forward and scooped the ball cross court, it would appear the ball bounced twice before he hit it. The replay would confirm this, yet Chair Umpire Jake Garner decided otherwise and awarded Edmund the point. After arguing this with Garner, Djokovic would then ask to challenge whether Edmund’s ball even landed in. However, Garner wouldn’t allow the challenge, claiming Djokovic had waited too long. The TV replay would clearly show the ball landed out. Replays also appeared to show that Edmund’s feet rain into the net before his shot bounced twice. That’s at least two, and a maximum of three ways in which Edmund should have lost the point, but not one of those calls were made. Edmund went on to hold his serve in a game where it clearly should’ve been broken. As Brad Gilbert has stated for many years, players should be allowed to challenge incidentals such as double bounces and net touches. This was as embarrassing a mistake as the 2004 Wimbledon, when the chair umpire miscalled the score during a second set tiebreak of Venus Williams’ second round match, which prematurely awarded victory to her opponent. In this case, at least Djokovic still won the set and the match, so justice prevailed in the end. And in poetic justice, Djokovic’s serve on match point was out, yet called in. However, Edmund had no challenges remaining, so the match was over. These were a truly bizarre few games to end the first week of play on Centre Court.
5) Déjà vu with Makarova
At least year’s US Open, Ekaterina Makarova appeared near-tears after dropping the second tiebreak, as she had been up a set and a break over Caroline Wozniacki. Makarova then took a bathroom break close to 10 minutes in length, which completely upset the flow of the match. Ekaterina would win the third set 6-1. At Wimbledon, Makarova would apply the same exact tactic against the same exact opponent. After losing the second set to Wozniacki 6-1, she again took an extended bathroom break, and returned to the court to win the match. Is anyone going to do anything about this pure gamesmanship? I would really like to stop writing about this, especially in regards to the same player.
6) It’s déjà vu all over again with Wozniacki
During her fourth round loss to Daria Kasatkina last month at Roland Garros, Wozniacki basically imposed her own work stoppage. Already trailing in the match, Wozniacki held up play for several minutes by arguing with officials that it was too dark to play. During her Wimbledon loss to Makarova, at 4-1 in the third, Wozniacki stopped playing to argue it was raining too hard to continue. Thankfully the Wimbledon officials promptly dismissed her complaint and told her to play on. Bravo to the officials for taking charge in these situations, and not bowing to one player’s wishes. And then we practically had a third déjà vu moment in this same match. At the Australian Open earlier this year, Wozniacki came back from 5-1 down in the third set of her second round match to win, saving a match point on the way. In this match against Makarova, Wozniacki was again down 5-1 in the third, and saved four match points to get back to 5-5. However this time, she lost the match 7-5. When Wozniacki and Makarova meet, the drama never ends. Following this match, as David Law reported on Twitter, Wozniacki said of Makarova’s tournament chances, “‘I would be very surprised if she goes far.” Geez. The behavior of both women is unbecoming of the sport.
7) Thankfully, this fortnight will be remembered much more for sportsmanship than gamesmanship.
The embraces shared by Nadal and Del Potro, Anderson and Isner, and Kerber and Serena at the conclusion of their matches were heart-warming. The ability to show such admiration and compassion for your opponent immediately after competing against them is what makes sport great. Especially notable were Anderson’s comments to the BBC in his post-match interview, where he described his struggle to even be happy for himself after winning his marathon semifinal due to how badly he felt for Isner’s loss. Well done, ladies and gents.
8) Reducing the amount of seeds in the draws is completely unnecessary. In fact, it’s harmful and unfair
Starting with next year’s Australian Open, the Majors will only seed 16 players instead of 32. In this tournament’s women’s singles draw, none of the top 10 seeds made the quarterfinals. While this was an extreme case of upsets, surprising first week results at the Majors are far from uncommon. Seeding only 16 players will cause more first week excitement and upsets, but will result in lower-quality matchups in the second week. There are plenty of players ranked below 16th in the world who are fully deserving of some draw protection. And in an era where we cling to so many all-time greats in the twilight of their careers, we will regret making it more challenging for them to go deep at Grand Slam events. This change should be immediately re-considered.
9) The on-court serve clock is not going to speed up play in any significant or consistent way.
The summer hard court events in North America will introduce an on-court serve clock, with the following guidelines announced per the US Open Series website:
“Players will have 25 seconds to begin their service motion, although a chair umpire will have the ability and discretion to pause the clock. They will have the ability to resume the clock from the same time or reset the clock to 25 seconds.
During a game, this 25-second clock will begin once the chair umpire has announced the score following the previous point. The receiver is responsible for playing to the server’s reasonable pace.
If the player has not started the service motion at the completion of the 25-second countdown, the chair umpire will issue a time violation.
After even-numbered games, the chair umpire will start the clock when the balls are all in place on the server’s end of the court.”
Slow-playing men like Nadal and Djokovic have spoken out against this implementation, but is anything going to really change? I just don’t see most chair umpires penalizing these superstars beyond a warning. These guidelines leave a lot of discretion in the hands of the umpires, as they can pause or reset the clock as they see fit, and are not required to immediately call the score as a point concludes. We already saw this during the semifinal between Nadal and Djokovic, where the chair umpire would often pause for a significant amount of time before calling the score, and thus delaying the start of the serve clock. And if different umpires will start the clock at different intervals, there’s no fairness in that. These rules leave room for too much discretion. I applaud the effort for transparency, but the impact here will be minimal at best.
10) Neither singles final was all that captivating, but cheers to the resiliency of all four finalists
Less than a year after a complicated child birth and multiple operations, Serena Williams returned to the ladies’ championship match in just her fourth tournament in 18 months. After an abysmal 2017 season which saw almost as many losses as wins, Angelique Kerber defeats the GOAT for the second time in a Major final, and for her first Venus Rosewater Dish. Dispelling a reputation for choking when it matters, Anderson saves match point to come back from two sets down against a 20-time Major champion, and somehow rebounds two days later to win a near-seven hour semifinal. Following two years of emotional and physical failures, Novak Djokovic reasserts his greatness by ousting Nadal in an epic semifinal, and winning his 13th Major. This fortnight provided us with plenty of inspiration.
