Most sports live and die by the clock.
The siren announces the end of a football match, and three short whistles signal the end of the game in soccer. The clock tells us who wins a race, or at least who breaks a record.
Even cricket, renowned for its calm, uses the clock to determine when play starts, stops and even expulsions in between.
Tennis, on the other hand, has always been relatively untouched by timing devices playing a key role in the game. The clock is generally a witness to tennis, not an active participant. When it does intervene, it often gets in the way.
Loading…
Time is passing faster and faster, the long presentation evenings are dragging on into the early hours of the morning and the matches are dragging on into the wee hours of the morning. The once rare “epics” have become commonplace, often ending in front of ever-smaller crowds.
After coming back from two sets down to win a 4-hour, 23-minute thriller against Emil Ruusuvuori in the second round, Daniil Medvedev was open about the problems with long games and late finishes.
“What’s 3:40 in the morning like? Honestly, I wouldn’t be here! If I was a tennis fan, I’d come, I’d get there at 1 a.m. and I’d say, ‘Let’s go home, we’re going to watch the rest of the match on TV,’ and then I’d watch for 30 minutes and go to bed.”
The Australian Open has seen increasingly longer matches in recent years, despite gradual changes to shorten match lengths and Melbourne Park’s opening hours.
In 1997, there was one point for every 33 seconds of playing time in men’s singles matches at the Open. Last year, that time increased to 44 seconds per point, a 33 percent increase.
It is not just in Melbourne that matches are dragging on, but all over the tennis world. In any case, the game is getting longer by the year, with each point on average slower than the last.
So what causes matches to lag, and can it be fixed?
The game in evolution
The advent of polyester strings, sparked by Gustavo Kuerten’s victory at Roland Garros in 1997, led to the rise of the baseline game and a decline in serve-and-volley. (Getty Images: Picture Alliance/Arne Dedert)
Although tennis has a reputation as a game that has stood the test of time, it has evolved relatively dramatically in the Open era.
In 1969, Rod Laver won his second Grand Slam at a time when there was no tie-break. “Rocket” wielded a wooden racket with natural gut strings and a nine-inch head, beating all competitors everywhere, but especially on grass.
Since then, new surfaces and technologies have emerged, and players have become bigger and fitter.
Racquets that were once made of wood became racquets made of titanium, graphite and carbon. Stars like Steffi Graf were able to generate more and more power and topspin by swinging a larger and lighter racquet.
Former Brazilian No. 1 Gustavo Kuerten spearheaded what may be the greatest evolution of the modern era. Kuerten won the 1997 French Open using polyester strings from Luxilion, then known primarily as a medical supply company.
Over time, most players have switched partially or entirely to polyester strings, with only a few (like Roger Federer) retaining partial use of natural strings in their setup.
Polyester strings, combined with a larger racquet head, can help players generate the purring, spinning balls that dive into the court that players of past generations could only dream of.
This has encouraged the emergence of baseliners, players who do most of their work from the back of the court. This has led to longer rallies with players sliding around the court to catch ball after ball.
The contrast with previous eras is clear.
On the first day of the 1975 Australian Open, John Newcombe won the Australian Open by jumping to the net on the Kooyong grass after beating Jimmy Connors. The net was Newcombe’s strong point in the match, with the Australian going to the net on 109 of his 126 legal serves.
The match lasted just under two hours and 50 minutes, with both players making 554 shots on 273 points over the course.
Compare that to last year’s three-set Australian Open final. When Novak Djokovic finally defeated Stefanos Tsitsipas, nearly three hours had passed. Djokovic and Tsitsipas rarely left the baseline, hitting the ball a combined 839 times on 206 points.
They scored 30 goals in total, which is rare these days on any surface. The modern game generally has more aces than previous generations, but also more long rallies.
Despite this real change in the style of play, there is perhaps another element which is at the origin of the lengthening of the matches.
A secret thief
Pundits often cite these technological and stylistic changes as the reason for the ever-lengthening matches. However, data from recent years suggests that rallies may not be the cause of the slowdown in modern tennis.
The length of exchanges doesn’t seem to be increasing enough to compensate for the increased playing time. Each additional shot in an exchange lasts about a second or two, and the marginal increase in exchange length isn’t close to the extra 11 seconds needed for each point.
On the contrary, it seems that the recovery, rituals and routines that take place before and after points and games take up extra time during games. Research by Stephanie Kovalchik indicates that a small fraction of each game is devoted to ball play.
Despite the introduction of a service clock – requiring players to serve the ball within 25 seconds – this time loss seems to be increasing year on year.
In fact, the introduction of service time could increase the time needed to complete a point. The previous rule stated that only 20 seconds were allowed before a serve had to be attempted, and this rule was rarely enforced.
After the introduction of the new timer, it seems that the time between points has increased. One possible reason is that the timer is not automatic, but must be activated by the chair umpire.
Is there a solution, or even a problem?
As the Australian Open takes place in front of a captive audience around the world, Tennis administrators debate game’s future direction behind closed doors.
The condition of the product on the ground also deserves consideration if such a radical change is even being considered.
Tennis officials have not been shy about trying to address pace of play issues in recent years. The introduction of the fifth-set tiebreak has been controversial in some quarters.
It is difficult to see radical changes like the adoption of “Fast4” tennis or games without advantage introduced in the short or medium term.
Instead, tweaks around the edges are more likely to deliver real results in terms of match length and pace of play.
A reduction in serve time would likely save playing time. Reducing serve time to 20 seconds would save about 20 minutes per match on average, which is a real and significant difference. A further reduction to 15 seconds would bring match length back to about what it was 25 years ago.
Technological decentralization, similar to what has been recently implemented in golf, could also result in slightly shorter rallies. Reducing the amount of spin and incentive power could encourage players to return to the net. However, this is unlikely to result in significantly shorter matches.
It is also difficult to assess the impact of longer matches on the general public.
This year’s Australian Open saw record attendance in its first week of play, with crowds watching the action day and night.
But those numbers only tell part of the story. Last year, the Australian Open saw TV ratings drop 40% from the previous year. While TV ratings increased when Australians like Alex de Minaur played, they declined or remained flat on days when Australians were absent.
And daytime and early evening attendance records disappear as night turns to early morning.
If tennis wants to end its nocturnal addiction, a time change might just be the answer.
