Commentary: Tennis needs to shorten matches

I know tennis aficionados are still buzzing about Novak Djokovic’s five-set win over Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open final and are hailing it as perhaps the greatest match ever mostly because the two combatants needed five hours and 53 minutes to complete their duel.

But the length of the match is precisely why tennis has become a fringe sport since its peak in popularity with John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. That Djokovic-Nadal match was longer than some wars, and it’s not all that uncommon. Nadal went 5:14 to survive in the semifinals.

What I see in tennis today is a lot of dead time — toweling off after each point, adjusting wrist bands and checking the fuzz on the ball before serving. Yeah, real riveting.

The NFL has taken steps to speed up games. College basketball fits in a tight two-hour window. If tennis wants to become a mainstream sport again, I don’t think forcing fans to give up a quarter of their day is the way to do it.

I’ve never understood why the men need to play best-of-five sets to decide a match. The women go two-out-of-three, and I don’t think fans are going home feeling cheated over not getting to sit through more.

The greatest tennis match of all-time probably was the 1980 Wimbledon final between Borg and McEnroe. It went five sets and had a fourth-set tiebreaker of 18-16. The fifth set was won by Borg, 8-6. That showdown went 3:53.

Athletes are so much more advanced today, so maybe the tennis is better, too. But current stars certainly could learn something from the old-timers about picking up the pace.

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2125 or dharris@DaytonDailyNews.com.

About the Author