John Isner and Nicolas Mahut: Transcending the Boundaries of the Sport

Till yesterday (June 22^nd, 2010), an imaginary conversation between tennis fans over the longest tennis matches would probably boil down to something on the lines of, “You remember the time when they had no tie-breakers? Pancho Gonzalez and Charlie Pasarell played an epic match over two days comprising 112 games with the scoreline – 22-24 1-6 16-14 6-3 11-9. Oh, those previous generations!”

Years later, we can expect a similar conversation to be something like, “You remember the time when no Grand Slam other than the US Open had a fifth set tie-breaker? John Isner and Nicolas Mahut played the longest ever tennis match, which went for three days, and was stopped at 59-59 on day two. Oh, those previous generations!”

And 10 hrs later, they are still going strong

Maybe this conversation will actually take place if the Grand Slams decide to introduce the fifth set tie-breaker after witnessing this inhumanly long fifth set that went on and on … an on and when play was ultimately suspended after the match duration clocked exactly 10 hrs. Words would fail to describe the amount of physical effort demonstrated by these two lion-hearted tennis players as they kept on bombing one big serve after another, even when seemingly unable to move on the court. Their shoulders were drooping, sweat was literally flowing out of their polos, the legs were refusing to stand up, and the hands were all but unable to lift themselves to hold the racket.

Yet, it would be a gross understatement to merely mention about the strong willpower of both the players—gladiators (for once, the term doesn’t sound like a cliché). Minutes passed by, hours were accumulated, 10-all converted into 20-all into 35-all into 50-all …… and time and again the players found themselves in tricky positions (like 0-30) or down break points—effectively match points— at 15-40 or 30-40. But they were stubborn enough to gather the last ounce of strength and fire one more cannon ball to get out of those landmines and level the match. They still had enough belief in themselves to hit an approach shot and dive around for a volley winner.

If people applaud Rafael Nadal for the never-say-die spirit and Roger Federer for his never-let-go attitude, then what about these gladiators?

Federer may have struggled today increasing the anguish of his already concerned fan base, Nikolay Davydenko may have again failed to deliver in Slams, Andy Roddick’s confidence may have soared to new heights and Nadal may have been enjoying a great day off watching Germany and England march into the next round at the FIFA World Cup, but there was nothing that could shatter anyone’s attention from the epic (as I said before, it is rare that such a term doesn’t sound like a cliché) that was happening at Court No. 18—far far away from the Centre Court where the Queen will grace her presence come tomorrow.

And if the players were courageous enough to keep themselves going by refusing to blink, then spare a thought for the chair umpire who sat at the same place for eight long hours turning his head from one part of the court to the other, and still being professional enough to perform his duties up to his full potential and requesting the crowd to be “Quiet, please!” amidst the unending announcements of “Game player-X. Y games all, final set.”

However, the bigger question that is going to be asked once the match will get over (hopefully tomorrow?) is whether to reconsider the rule of not having a fifth set tie-break. Sure, it was because of the lack of one that we got to witness the 9-7 ending at the 2008 final or the 16-14 epic a year later in 2009, but is all this excitement worth at the cause of two players struggling for air on court? Isn’t it inhuman to let the players to play for eight long hours without allowing them a break, giving them time to regroup, perhaps have some food down their stomachs?

In fact, wouldn’t it be better to have a tie-break, say, after 12-12 or even 20-20 in the fifth set, if not at 6-6? For all the talk of “fifth set is only about the will rather than skill” or “only the mentally tough players survive the fifth set,” wouldn’t we get enough proof of the same once the players cross a certain limit in the decider?

Nobody knows whether the ITF will ponder on such thoughts once this match gets over. All we know right now is that today was one example when the players transcended their main objective of winning against losing, and showed the world the attributes of competitiveness, refusing to surrender and enough respect for the opponent. All the while showing sporting brilliance.

And if this is what this sport is all about, then every tennis fan should be proud of being one. I, for one, was one, and certainly am more than before!