This Isner-Mahut match is a study in mediocrity
June 24, 2010 by
John Stansberry
On the subject of the endless John Isner-Nicolas Mahut match at Wimbledon, which as of this writing has yet to restart, I know I’m going to find myself in the minority with the following opinion: it was a long, boring study in mediocrity.
As I watched game after game tick away (I jumped in when it was 35-all in the fifth set), I realized I wasn’t sticking around because I was being entertained. No, on the contrary, I had developed some sort of sick commitment to the spectacle, I had to see it through to the end. It was like sticking out a blind date with a woman I instantly disliked the moment I met her. And much to my chagrin, no end was offered up because the match was called due to darkness, tied 59-59.
These guys have played a 7-hour fifth set that’s longer than any other full MATCH ever played. Their match has now stretched into three days, and I’m wondering if this is even necessary. The lack of a fifth set tie break at Wimbledon has ensured that whoever wins this thing will be mentally and physically spent upon advancing to the next round. Pretty goofy way to run a tournament, if you ask me.
I thought I’d be completely alone in this opinion, but I will be damned if Douglas Perry of the Oregonian didn’t echo what I was thinking:
I’m just going to go ahead and say it: The John Isner-Nicolas Mahut match, which will finish up (we hope) today, isn’t very interesting.
Sure, it has a certain survivor’s-tale appeal. You can’t help but want to stick around to see if Isner has to resort to cannibalism to live another day. But as a pure tennis experience, the 10-hours-and-still-going match — the longest on record by far — left something to be desired. One hundred eighteen games in the fifth set with no breaks of serve? Y es, both players have impressive serves, but this scoreline says more about the weakness in the rest of their games. At times in that endless fifth set on Wednesday, the play — the actual play itself, rather than the drama of waiting for one of the players to mentally snap — was simply boring. (The Oregonian)
Perry makes a strong point: what kind of nitwit can’t break the other guy after 118 games? Seriously? This is the equivalent of an overtime game between the Clippers and Knicks where neither team can stop the other one from scoring.
Will I watch this thing play out today? No, I’ve given all I can give to this blind date. Right before the check came, I excused myself to the bathroom but sprinted out to the parking lot instead.
Kevin O on Thu, 24th Jun 2010 12:55 pm
The Fifth set in gasmes is was more 10 7-6 sets of tennis. And if you watched any of the match you noticed the Isner had basically given up on anything other then his serve witch is one of the top five on the ATP tour… Mahut serve was good, but stats were blowen by Isner’s lack fitness to want to go after any balls to break Mahut… Mahut acttually at 57-57 all he had Isner love-40 and Isner served 5 service winners or aces to win game. Mahut ran down ball after ball that should have been winners by Isner, but his fitness level was very high. Interestig note, Mahut had Isner on the ropes physically and asked to have match called do to light.
clingy on Thu, 24th Jun 2010 1:22 pm
“The Fifth set in gasmes is was more 10 7-6 sets of tennis.”
i don’t even know where to begin to start with this
bigv123 on Fri, 25th Jun 2010 12:29 am
Your opinion might be in the minority there chief, but, it’s spot on. The truly sad thing about this match is that ANY criticism, if there is any to be had, will be directed toward the lack of a 5th set tie-break. *BZZZZZZ* Wrong answer. The REAL problem is playing tennis on fricken grass!!
So ok, for those that don’t know, I played a little tennis in college. My game was predicated by a big serve and an attacking style…exactly the kind of arsenal that gets rewarded on the slick courts at the All England Club. And yet even I see the utter stupidity of playing tennis on grass courts. Recall back about a decade or so when Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic and Pete “Cult of Personality” Sampras effectively turned the fortnight into a serving competition? Well, Wimbledon completely changed the grass to a broader leaf strain to help slow the balls down. They changed the balls to slow them down as well. And, they cut the grass lower to force a higher bounce all in an effort to keep their event from being a clown show.
The simple fact is that playing tennis on a grass court with a racquetball frame on steroids is not a sport. If the Brits had anything other than tradition to hold on to…like a bit of common sense, then they would roll in a few bulldozers, tear that grass out of there and install clay courts, which is, imho the truest test of tennis.
I’ve already ranted on this enough for today. I’ll save my Isner/Rasheed Wallace comparison for another day…
V