Musings about the current state of tennis after watching a classic Federer & Nadal Match
Mickey W Mantle
Mantle Consulting and co-author of Managing the Unmanageable. Also Former: CEO, Wanderful Inc.; SVP Development,Gracenote; CTO/VP Engineering, Broderbund; Director 3D Graphics, Pixar;
As an almost life-long tennis fan and an occasional tennis player, today I watched a classic tennis match between (arguably) the two greatest male tennis players ever to hold a racket - Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. It was as exciting today as it was in 2006. I won’t try to describe the play of these two tennis “gladiators”, but I do recommend you watch the match when you have a spare 5+ hours to be glued to your TV or device screen.
Until then, here is a brief recap of the match. Federer won the 1st set, Nadal the 2nd and 3rd, Federer the 4th, and then it was 6-5 for Nadal in the 5th, with Federer serving to make it even so they could play a tie-break to determine the winner of the match. But first he had to win his Serve game.
I won’t tell you who won, but here are a couple of links where you can watch about 20 minutes of the match highlights or just the final Championship Point to find out:
I can’t imagine how two players could play at such a high level for over 5 hours. Both were obviously at or near their prime here, but the number of incredible shots it took to make even one point on most of their serves was amazing.
Though this match was incredible, for over a decade more they continued to play many memorable matches. Including of course, their 2008 Wimbledon match (also 5+ hours) that is often called the greatest Men’s Tennis Match of all time:
Watch portions of that match here:
I have felt especially blessed to be a tennis fan, and watch both Roger and Rafa become the great tennis players that they were. I say were, because just recently my wife and I watched as Nadal lost the final match he would play as a professional tennis player, when Spain lost to The Netherlands in the Davis Cup Finals played in Malaga, Spain. Nadal had announced that match on November 20th would be his last before retiring from Professional Tennis. Federer had previously retired in 2022.
We watched them both live in some tournaments, but also in so many matches on The Tennis Channel/NBC/ESPN/etc., and in all the Tennis Tournaments that we follow closely.
The Changing of the Rules
But watching them play today reminded me of the many changes made to the sport over the years, and especially since this match. Of course there have been changes in equipment, training, diet, etc., but the changes I was pondering were those made to the rules of the game and the impact it has had on the players, and the fans.
Tiebreakers were introduced
Those tiebreakers have a complicated history
12-point tiebreaker. Even though this tiebreaker is played as “first to seven”, it's officially referred to as a “12-point tiebreak” game because it is the best of 12 points won by two (7-5). Winning this tiebreaker makes the game score of the set 7-6, and the player wins the set at seven games. However, long tiebreaks can still occur past 12 points if neither player can get a win by two points.
10-point tiebreaker. Also called the super tiebreaker, this type is played first to 10, with a win by two points. For men’s singles, this occurs in a tie during the fifth set, and for women’s, for a tie in the third set.
Masters matches become 3 instead of 5 Set matches
One of the biggest changes was made to the ATP[1] Masters Series matches. Up until 2007, most Masters finals were contested as best-of-five-set matches, but from 2008 all events were decided in best-of-three-set matches. As part of a shake-up of the tennis circuit in 2009, the Masters Series became the ATP Tour Masters 1000, with the addition of the number 1000 referring to the number of ranking points earned by the winner of each tournament.
my musings
An important aspect of these changes was that only the four Grand Slam Tournaments retained the 5 Set format for Men[2], which continues to this day.
The impact of this change was fundamental. Anyone who watches the two 5 hour/5 Set matches mentioned above can’t help but understand that 5 Sets really separates the “men from the boys”. Not just in each match, but to be a top 5 player prior to the rule change in 2008 you likely had to play many 5 Set matches, in addition to Grand Slam matches. The conditioning and skill required to maintain this effort was what separated the top players from the rest of the field.
The rule change was made to lessen the wear and tear on the top players, but also to moderate the time of tournament matches.
But Federer and Nadal, who had to maintain the heightened level of conditioning and play before the rule change, will be (but shouldn’t be) compared to those who came after the 2008 5-to-3 Set change. They were special players, as were others like Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendel, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, and other legends of the game who played before the rule changed..
Final Set tie-break rules changed for Grand Slams
None of the four grand slam tournaments will feature extended final sets after 2022. The Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open will all enforce a 10-point tie-break once the score reaches 6-6 in the final set of any match.
Previously, final sets at grand slam events had gone on until one player won by two clear games and unsurprisingly that led to some very late finishes that have wreaked havoc with players' schedules, let alone their fatigue levels. Most acknowledge that this change was initiated by…
The longest tennis match in Grand Slam history
American John Isner's epic Wimbledon triumph over Nicolas Mahut, which he won 70-68 in the final set in 2010, will remain the longest at 11 hours and 5 minutes. The two battled over the course of three days.
The historic match started at 6:13 p.m. on June 22, 2010, but was suspended at 9:07 p.m. due to fading light with the fifth set about to begin. The score was tied at 6-4, 3-6, 6-7 (7), 7-6 (3).
On the second day, the scoreboard stopped working and eventually shut off, as it was only programmed to go to 47-47 (but it would be fixed by the third day). The match was halted on Day 2 once the sun went down.
On Day 3, Isner won the deciding final set, 70-68. There were 980 total points, including 711 points in the fifth set. The players were exhausted, and Isner would lose his next match in just 74 minutes (the shortest men's match in Wimbledon history at that time).
Recommended by LinkedIn
John Isner was a participant in another long match at Wimbledon, that added fuel to change the final set to a tie-break. In a 2018 Semi-Final match John Isner and Kevin Anderson played a 6 hour 36 minute match, with Isner winning the match: 7-6 (8), 6-7 (7), 6-7(11), 6-4, 26-24.
my musings
The introduction of the Final Set tie-break rules was another fundamental change, not unlike the change from 5 to 3 Set Matches, for all but the Men’s Grand Slam Tournaments. But this change did not exclude Men’s Grand Slam Tennis! While driven by good intentions and reducing the issues created by these occasional long strenuous matches, it again reduced the demarcation of those whose conditioning and skills would excel – even under these conditions. Basically, providing venues where the exceptional could still excel but also reducing the opportunities for the exceptional to stand out from the average.
The Challenge System (using Hawk-eye)
Hawk-eye is a technology used in tennis for determining if the ball is in or out, first introduced in 2006. This line-calling system uses multiple camera angles to trace the tennis ball's trajectory. Hawk-Eye uses six or more computer-linked television cameras situated around the court. The availability of Hawk-eye (and other automated line-calling technology, such as Cyclops) paved the way for a Challenge system to be introduced to make line calls more reliable.
When Were Challenges Introduced?
The challenge system was first introduced into professional tennis in March 2006, when Hawkeye rolled out its innovation providing instant video replays of line calls at the NASDAQ-100 Open in Florida. Over the following couple of years, challenges were introduced at the Grand Slams and other major tournaments, like Masters 1000 events.
However, in the early days challenges caused some controversy as the rudimentary systems operated with a degree of error. This caused some instances when a ball would be called in, but instant video replay would show the ball clearly being out. This would leave both the players and the umpire in a difficult position, often ending in one player feeling hard done by.
Nowadays, challenges are commonplace at all top-tier professional tournaments. This offers more consistency to the players and reduces the level of human error in the sport.
How Many Challenges Do You Get?
Players typically get three challenges per set in a tennis match. Players also receive one additional challenge if the set goes into a tiebreak.
When a player challenges a call, the Chair Umpire calls up a video replay of the ball when it hit the court surface (created by Hawk-eye). If a player challenges a call and gets it right, then they retain all of their existing challenges. However, if they challenge a call and they are incorrect, they lose one of their challenges.
If a player runs out of challenges, they can no longer question any line calls until a new Set has begun.
How Challenges Work
If a player decides to challenge a line call, they must do so in a timely and clear manner. This means that a player cannot run over to look at a mark, ponder their decision for a few seconds and then decide to challenge. Instead, challenges should be done pretty much immediately after the call is made that a player wants to dispute.
Players tend to call out ‘challenge’ and raise up their arm or racket to signal to the chair umpire that they want to dispute a call made by a line judge.
The chair umpire has the authority to dismiss a challenge if it is not made clearly or in a timely manner. As you can imagine, this can cause some arguments in court.
Automated Line Calling (using Hawk-eye)
The use of Hawk-eye replays in the challenge system eventually gave way to the elimination of human line-judges at most Professional Tennis Tournaments.
ATP dropping line judges, to use all electronic line calls in 2025
ATP announced in April 2023 that it will use Electronic Line Calling Live, known as ELC Live, for "out" calls in all matches beginning in 2025. Each match will still be overseen by a chair umpire, but the line judges who used to be entrusted with determining where shots landed will no longer be present on court. Players will still be able to challenge calls using the challenge system, but such challenges are rarely overturned and are being used much less frequently.
The ATP said ELC Live will be for every surface, including clay courts.
my musings
The introduction of the challenge system and now Automated Line Calling, have clearly been welcomed by Tennis Professionals and fans alike. Time was when bad line calls became contentious and caused bad feelings among competitors, as well as the line judges and chair umpire. Can anyone complain about “getting the call right?”
But there is another side of this, which perhaps has now gone the way of the wooden racket. And that was the passion that was evoked by a line call that a player thought was a “bad call”. What all the rule changes discussed above and now automated line calling has done is to diminish the passion and spirit of the players. Could anyone forget John McEnroe’s famous “You cannot be serious!” rant to the Chair Umpire at a call he disagreed with at one of his great matches.
So we may have gained some things, like lots of time due to the reduction of Sets from 5 to 3, long final sets due to tie-breaks, and arguments over line calls. This is good for Tournament Directors, who need to move bodies and have predictable schedules, but at the cost of truly dramatic, thrilling matches. At the cost of giving players a chance to demonstrate passion, training, and skills. And at the cost of providing a truly unique experience that is tennis.
Yes, the matches will still be good and I will still watch them. But for me, tennis has lost some of its best appeal. And I am sorry that I won’t have a chance to see some of the new stars, like Sinner, exhibit more raw passion on the court; like Alcaraz demonstrate more of his astounding skills and endurance; like Medvedev playing even more spectacularly from beyond the baseline (while taunting his opponent, the chair umpire, and the crowd).
I think I’ll go back and watch another Nadal/Federer match for a while.
--Mickey
November 30, 2024
[1] The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and the International Tennis Federation (ITF) are the governing bodies in professional tennis. They focus on different parts of the tennis market and control the rules, business and all aspects of the professional sport of Tennis.
[2] Women have played 3 Set matches from 1901 onward. From 1891 to 1901, women played best-of-five matches only in the finals of the US National Championships, the predecessor for what is now known as the US Open.
Material Program Manager at Collins Aerospace
3wI enjoyed your musings. I tend to agree with them.