Wimbledon - John Isner is done, after 3 days, results inside [spoilers]

[Young Drachma]

When I heard about it I was pretty astounded. I haven't seen any of the highlights, but I'm super curious to see how it went down because that's just an epic set of tennis no matter what. I think the novelty of a no 5th set tiebreak is great for tennis on the whole. The 5th set tiebreaker is really unnatural more than other tiebreakers in other sports but I think that mostly because of my tennis background. As a player, I generally like it mostly because it gives the match finality (though it's usually 3rd set) and for practical reasons, but in Grand Slams, I like the idea of it going on.

[sterlingice]

ESPN3 has the archive of the match. I watched the last few points and then the presentation at the end- it was pretty cool

SI

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yes, I would. In fact, they've implemented penalty kicks in soccer to prevent exactly this type of glorification of semi-mediocrity.

If an NFL playoff game went into four overtimes, it would be far from considered a classic, and, while it would certainly maintain some entries in the record book, history would not be all that kind.

Look at the women's record for longest tennis match. It stretched on for six-plus hours for an entirely different reason. Could you imagine sitting through it? One rally lasted nearly 700 shots. I believe this was during the Andrea Jaeger moonball era.

Tennis seems rather uniquely vulnerable to great feats of the mundane.

I'd love to see you or anyone else stand up on the court for 11+hours. just stand there. most likely you'd fall over in a stupor. No matter how low your opinion is of the STYLE of play, it in no way reduces the significance of what those players did.

To have played so many points, whether long or short and still have the reserves and strength to pull back and slap a 130mph+ serve 9 hours into a match is impressive to say the least.

Complain about the style of play, dislike that all you want, but you don't have a step to stand on in denying the history involved with that match, the sheer guts and effort that it took to complete it.

You're welcome to your opinion Jim. Sadly it shows a serious lack of depth of character to spout off about it the way you did.

[Solecismic]

I stand by what I wrote, and I'm sorry it has so personally upset a couple of people.

Feats that display significant endurance and moderate athleticism are fine and dandy, but hardly worthy of celebration.

I'm not in the shape I was when I could play three-hour matches in my 20s (nor could I ever serve effectively over 100 mph), but I do think I'm capable of standing on a grass field for 11 hours over three days. Just give me a few drinks and an occasional bathroom break.

These are adults making a living at this. I see no need to honor this display of grossly ineffective tennis the same way you'd give every ten-year-old in a youth league an "I tried" trophy at the end of the season.

The average Roger Federer match displays far greater athletic prowess. Maybe you didn't notice, but that match was slow. Around 60% of the points were unreturned serves. Then significant towel-hunting and walking around. If you look at the stats on the previous longest Wimbledon match (the Pancho Gonzales marathon in 1969), the games played rate per hour was far higher, and yet there was nowhere near all the service winners.

What do you think athletes do when they're tired? They don't quit. Again, I'm sorry that you're so upset and see the need to make this personal, but I see no reason to glorify such an ineffective display. The longest match in tennis history has about as much meaning to me as the slowest time in Tour de France history. A curiosity alone.

[SackAttack]

Jim, I guess my question would be simply this - is your gripe with the quality of the players or the fact that they took forever to finally resolve the match?

Put another way - since you mention Roger Federer, how did you feel about his Wimbledon finals the last two years against Rafa Nadal and Andy Roddick?

Neither of those matches were quite as ridiculous as this one in terms of games played, but I believe the final set in the Federer/Roddick match went to a combined 30 games.

[Solecismic]

My gripe is celebrating such a low-quality match - the service returner only won 221 of 1,011 total points (though more than half of the points where there actually was a service return).

The Roddick/Federer match was riveting, and 16-14 with both players all over the court is a long, long way from 70-68 with two players unable to do much of anything other than serve.

[Thomkal]

For those that care, Isner is back in action right now on ESPN2 and its not looking good. He looks very stiff and slow and after being broken only once in the match with Mahut has now been broken on each of his first two serves. So he's down 3-0 already

[Thomkal]

lost the first set 6-0 and had to call the trainer to massage his neck. Sad to see him struggle like this

[Ksyrup]

He should have stuck with doubles and withdrawn from singles.

[Thomkal]

lost second set 6-3 and had trainer come back at the end

[Ksyrup]

He lost 6-0. 6-3. 6-2 - and set the record for biggest drop in aces from one match to another: 112 to ZERO.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

My gripe is celebrating such a low-quality match - the service returner only won 221 of 1,011 total points (though more than half of the points where there actually was a service return).

The Roddick/Federer match was riveting, and 16-14 with both players all over the court is a long, long way from 70-68 with two players unable to do much of anything other than serve.

Jim, I know you're not as dense as you're acting about this. You're a smart guy. Think about the sheer percentages involved in 2 players, skilled or NOT skilled managing to not screw up and lose 2 consecutive games of tennis. The odds that in a match this long neither man managed to lose 4 points out of 14 consecutive points at any point along the way.

Stamina, yes many sports require it, but it is still an amazing feat to play any game for 9 straight hours as they did on the second day.

Repetitive motion. You go out and serve 100 times. See just how much quality you have on any swing after that. These men served over a THOUSAND times and even so were sending the ball across the grass over 100 mph. Yes they only returned 23% of the serves, You see that as terrible return skills, but perhaps its just as much their excellence on the serve?

You complain that these players aren't very good, that the match was of terrible quality yet I see you compare them only to the players in the top 10 in the world. OF COURSE ITS LOWER QUALITY THAN THEM. Federer who you keep referring too is only the best player to EVER PLAY THE GAME. These two guys are in the top 100 players in the world. Perhaps you need to rethink you're expectations of a 1st round match.

You're constant derision of this event and its significance shows a real lack of understanding of the game of tennis, and professional athletics in general.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

He lost 6-0. 6-3. 6-2 - and set the record for biggest drop in aces from one match to another: 112 to ZERO.

I'm shocked he can lift the stick, let alone play another 3 sets of tennis.

[Logan]

Wow, my opinion of Jim has definitely changed a bit.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Logan

Wow, my opinion of Jim has definitely changed a bit.

+1

[Thomkal]

a bump here because guess who are playing each other in the 1st round of Wimbledon this year? Yep its the rematch-somehow I don't think it will take quite as long to play it this time around.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Clearly, this was set up just to give people on FOFC something to argue about.

[Thomkal]

And the rematch has just started over on ESPN2. Though you can probably check back in 5 hours or so and they will still be playing

[MIJB#19]

Okay, lets turn this into a FOFC puzzle: what were the odds for them to meet again in the first round?
What you need to know first:
* Isner is unseeded
* Mahut is unseeded
* the bracket of 128 has 32 seeded players, of whom none can meet before the 3rd round

Read, set, calculate!

[Drake]

2/3

[Thomkal]

hey the first set is going into a tiebreak-who could have guessed that would happen?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Okay, lets turn this into a FOFC puzzle: what were the odds for them to meet again in the first round?
What you need to know first:
* Isner is unseeded
* Mahut is unseeded
* the bracket of 128 has 32 seeded players, of whom none can meet before the 3rd round

Read, set, calculate!

Doesn't the first match have to end before they can have a second? We should calculate the odds of that ever happening, first.

[Thomkal]

And its already over-Isner takes it in just over 2 hours 7-6, 6-3, 7-6.

[Logan]

What was the serve return rate? I wanna know how this match stacks up in Jim's American Idol-style "All-Time Great Tennis Match Scoring System."

[MIJB#19]

60 of 201, so give or take 30%.

[DeToxRox]

So that Nadal/Djokovic final was pretty damned impressive. Can Jim tell me why I was wrong for thinking that?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

So that Nadal/Djokovic final was pretty damned impressive. Can Jim tell me why I was wrong for thinking that?

I remember being quite puzzled a couple of years ago why people (well, Jon's personal feelings are quite well established - even heard about them from people who have met him in real life) were so upset with me about my perception of the match.

I didn't watch this morning. But from the account I read it was an instant classic.

Tennis should be like that. A war, back and forth, bringing yourself back into the fight when you're on the brink, coming up with a passing shot when no one else in the world could even reach that ball.

A real marathon. Both players had to dig deep and fight with everything they had.

Comparing it to the Isner match makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something. The only common elements between these two matches seem to be that they both used tennis balls and they both took a long time. The Isner match was just two guys standing there for three days hitting serves at each other, too tired to even try and return serve for the most part.

Again, maybe I'm missing something. People seemed to be really upset with my opinion. So I can't rule out the thought that I'm not as up on tennis as I was when I played all the time (after all, I didn't even watch this morning). One of my favorite memories of when I played competitively was when I was in a tournament (low-level, probably about a 4.0 on the USTA scale they developed later), got pissed off at myself, and had a service game when I simply blasted four straight aces down the T. Still lost the match, though.

[RendeR]

What you appear to be missing Jim is any comprehension at all of what it takes to return even a medium sped 70-90mph) serve with any actual control or velocity, elt alone 100+mph serves. The reaction time alone SHOULD dissalow you ever seeing the ball, let alone reacting and striking it.

Funny how they do that and do it well at times. I'd say anything over returns of 15-20% off of first serves would be pretty frakking awesome.

I undertood then and I understand now that teh style of play "server and volley" is not to YOUR taste, but you cannot simply write it off as horrible play because you dislike that style. A LArge number if not a majority (sorry i've been out of the USTA system for some time) grow up playing that style because its the easiest to learn and master.

The true greats like Borg, McEnroe, and Federer and Nadal, they got great because they went BEYOND that style, they added more to their game.

If you think every single player in a 128 player field should be playing at THAT level then I'd rather you just stop watching and commenting because your expectations are ridiculous and unreachable.

You bring up an interesting point though. In your playing days you feel you would be approximately a 4.0 player.

On that scale Federer is a 7.0 nadal and the otehr rgeats as well.

The 128th guy? the one that walked in and played a qualifying TOURNAMENT the day before seeding came out? he's probably a 5.0 level player. Maybe a little higher (5.5)

Do you honestly expect THOSE players to play in the same way or at the same levels with the 7.0 super studs? It seems you must because thats all you kept using for comparison. And the idea of those players playing that marathon of a match and managing to NOT lose it for themselves somewhere along the way to that record setting event, is in itself worthy of great appreciation and glorification.

Can you see where I'm coming from now?

[miked]

If it were really that impossible to return, maybe these guys would have made it past the 3rd round or something.

Comparing that game to the one this morning and calling them both amazing tennis because of length is silly. The tennis that was played last night was light years beyond that of the Isner match.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

(well, Jon's personal feelings are quite well established - even heard about them from people who have met him in real life)

Well this was incredibly fucking random to see.

Hell, I didn't even remember our exchange in this thread, so unless Render's name is also Jon then I'm really confused how I'm so prominent in your mind over a year later. Seems a bit OCD to me.

edit to add: Even more bewildering would be such a claim when, as far as I can figure, there's only two people in the history of FOFC who've met me face to face and that was a single time each, on the same night, +/- a decade ago. I don't recall you being a big topic of conversation frankly.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You bring up an interesting point though. In your playing days you feel you would be approximately a 4.0 player.

On that scale Federer is a 7.0 nadal and the otehr rgeats as well.

The 128th guy? the one that walked in and played a qualifying TOURNAMENT the day before seeding came out? he's probably a 5.0 level player. Maybe a little higher (5.5)

If you go by the description on the USTA website, I should think that everyone on the ATP tour is between 6 and 7, and probably at the higher end of that scale.

[albionmoonlight]

"it's a shame anyone has to lose" is one of the more overused sports cliches. But damn if it did not apply this morning.

[korme]

Jim's right. Novak and Rafa just BATTLED for those 6 hours, for those watching. Near the end of the match, Novak was running around so much that after he lost a point he collapsed on the ground.

Watching Isner and Mahut was boring as hell. It was what anyone with a stick and a ball can do, at a much higher level. Still, comparing those matches is apples and oranges and using that as some way to attack Jim for his opinion was pretty lame.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by korme

using that as some way to attack Jim for his opinion was pretty lame.

Since people apparently insist on revisiting the ancient portion of the discussion ... as opposed to the quality way he referred to everyone who enjoyed the original match in question? I mean, nothing like calling people delusional because they happened to appreciate the drama of a moment or anything.

Please. Defend if you like, but it only diminishes you.

[Solecismic]

Glad to hear whatever it was is forgotten, Jon. So hopefully it was exaggeration. It sounded pretty bad.

Render, I'm not sure I know what it's like to face a 100-mph serve (at least one that was in more than a couple of times a set), and I can respect what they do - even Isner. I remember when I faced my first hard-server, back in high school, and my coach told me to step in, not back ten feet behind the baseline - catch it on its rise. Otherwise it plays you just like a ground ball plays an infielder if you wait for it.

But from a fan perspective, if I'm rating "good" tennis, I want to see the best playing. I don't consider the Isner game good tennis on the international level. Just because Isner can run me off the court 0-0-0 doesn't mean he's playing great tennis. I can respect what he does with his serve, but I don't think that match two years ago was anything but horrible tennis. What I still don't understand is why that makes me a bad person.

I loved watching McEnroe and Borg and Connors play. Connors could return anything. Federer is so good he's almost a machine. Nadal never lets go of a point. What I would consider classic tennis is two men at that level, up and down, never conceding a point. No one would consider any of my matches classic. I wouldn't even expect my mother to watch, and she loved tennis.

Ozzie Smith was such a proficient infielder people went to games just to see him make superhuman plays on hard grounders in the hole. That's what I remember as Great.

One other question, just to illustrate a point. Why don't we celebrate the people who finish last in a marathon? After all, they give their all, supposedly, too, and they've undoubtedly set a record for the most time spent participating in a difficult sport.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by miked

If it were really that impossible to return, maybe these guys would have made it past the 3rd round or something.

Comparing that game to the one this morning and calling them both amazing tennis because of length is silly. The tennis that was played last night was light years beyond that of the Isner match.

And again, you're comparing last nights match, between 2 of teh GREAT players, to a match between a couple of quality players. its a HUGE difference in the tennis world. a 10 place difference in the rankings is like going from a hall of fame pitcher to a middle relief guy for the cubs. There is a distinct and extreme change in pure talent level in Tennis.

Originally Posted by Ryan S

If you go by the description on the USTA website, I should think that everyone on the ATP tour is between 6 and 7, and probably at the higher end of that scale.

yes and thats the problem with it. if you go by that ranking listing *I* am a 6.0 player. I weigh 300lbs and haven't lifted my racquet in over a year. Thats the problem with the website listings, it gives you a general idea of where you "could" be.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Glad to hear whatever it was is forgotten, Jon. So hopefully it was exaggeration. It sounded pretty bad.

Render, I'm not sure I know what it's like to face a 100-mph serve (at least one that was in more than a couple of times a set), and I can respect what they do - even Isner. I remember when I faced my first hard-server, back in high school, and my coach told me to step in, not back ten feet behind the baseline - catch it on its rise. Otherwise it plays you just like a ground ball plays an infielder if you wait for it.

But from a fan perspective, if I'm rating "good" tennis, I want to see the best playing. I don't consider the Isner game good tennis on the international level. Just because Isner can run me off the court 0-0-0 doesn't mean he's playing great tennis. I can respect what he does with his serve, but I don't think that match two years ago was anything but horrible tennis. What I still don't understand is why that makes me a bad person.

I loved watching McEnroe and Borg and Connors play. Connors could return anything. Federer is so good he's almost a machine. Nadal never lets go of a point. What I would consider classic tennis is two men at that level, up and down, never conceding a point. No one would consider any of my matches classic. I wouldn't even expect my mother to watch, and she loved tennis.

Ozzie Smith was such a proficient infielder people went to games just to see him make superhuman plays on hard grounders in the hole. That's what I remember as Great.

One other question, just to illustrate a point. Why don't we celebrate the people who finish last in a marathon? After all, they give their all, supposedly, too, and they've undoubtedly set a record for the most time spent participating in a difficult sport.

I don't thin you're a bad person Jim, but your initial few posts about that previous match were downright vitriolic about it. And as I stated many times that in your opinion its bad tennis to play serve and volley, thats fine we get that, but if you're using that to utterly disregard what isner and his opponent did last year then to be perfectly frank, you're wrong. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of what it takes to play Tennis at that level.

Thats all I said then, thats all I said now. You're statements showed a ridiculous shallowness of understanding and appreciation of what these athletes do and What it takes to do them.

To try and compare the style and skill of the Nadals and Conners of the Tennis lore to the Isner's is just insipid. It doesn't relate. You can't expect the younger up and comers to put on the spectacle that the all time greats did and still do. That said you can't just ignore what Isner did either, it was a grueling and truly amazing thing that happened. Your scorn was, it would seem, misinformed and misplaced.

If it helps anyone understand what I mean. Federer in his teens was a serve and volley player. Same as Isner. He hit a wall and had to learn more and develop more to become who is is now. Style != Skill and it certainly doesn't equate to how good you are. it simply gives you as the viewer a guage of what you feel like watching.

[Solecismic]

Jon, I said people were being deluded by the media's incessant attention to the record-setting nature of the match. That's a long way from calling people delusional, which carries the additional connotation of mental illness. But if you felt I was doing so, I apologize. I should have been more precise in my language. Probably shouldn't have gone as far as I did in that sequence of posts - sometimes I get carried away when I want to make a point.

Render, I'm assuming you saw the match. Was that really serve-and-volley? The match statistics indicate otherwise. All I saw was serve. I have an appreciation for a good serve-and-volley game, but it's not great tennis if it's against someone who simply can't return serve. And you can't beat a player at your own level if you can't return serve.

[RendeR]

And the first portion of each day of play were far more serve and volley than they were just hammering serves. You speak of it as if the last 2 hours of ace or 2nd serve play was the way the entire match went. No matter anyone's condition the repetitive fatigue issue is going to take a toll on the overall level of play.

It doesn't diminish the achievement. You spoke of it as if it shouldn't even be considered impressive. That the excitement it generated (which, lets admit, tennis NEEDS these days) was overblown and ridiculous, which it definitely was not. It was an amazing event.

I have no qualms with you disliking the play style and not finding it entertaining, but I did take umbrage with the way you dismissed it. It was, no matter your opinion of the play style or think of it as entertaining or not, an amazing match which was rivaled only by a few matches in the History of Tennis.

Comparatively, do you think the Miami/San Diego playoff game in '81 was "Top quality football" the entire way through? I don't. The majority of the 2nd half and the overtimes were boring mistake filled football. Does that diminish the excitement and the relevance of that game?

Of course it doesn't.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RendeR

It was, no matter your opinion of the play style or think of it as entertaining or not, an amazing match which was rivaled only by a few matches in the History of Tennis.

We can certainly agree to disagree here. I think some people, myself included, would be turned away from tennis as a result of the match.

Originally Posted by RendeR

Comparatively, do you think the Miami/San Diego playoff game in '81 was "Top quality football" the entire way through? I don't. The majority of the 2nd half and the overtimes were boring mistake filled football. Does that diminish the excitement and the relevance of that game?

Of course it doesn't.

After watching hundreds of games, I've realized every single play is filled with mistakes. That's inevitable because you need 11 players working toward the same goal - they're all working against individuals determined to overpower them or trick them - and the play has to be well designed for the defense it encounters.

The Miami/San Diego game had so many moments of excitement that it stands out as a great game. I've never gone back and watched it again in its entirety, so you may well be right about quality. I'm remembering it through the lens of a teenager who, strangely at the time, was a Dolphin fan who lived or died with every play. It's probably the only NFL game where I yelled at television as much as I did (pre-Rodriguez) for Michigan games.

The Dolphins were a balanced team that was playoff quality, but not quite good enough to challenge for a Super Bowl. The Chargers had one of the great offenses of all-time, but a weak defense. I understand what you're trying to say here in terms of Winslow's exhaustion and the length of the game and the extra offense without great defense, but there is so much more going on in football than in tennis (more an individual battle) that I don't agree with the comparison.

[whomario]

I rarely have time to watch Tennis theese days, but did catch both semi finals and the final (on the men´s side of things) and boy did it rekindle my love for the sport

When 2 great ones meet it truly is one of the real "gladiator" sports around in a way, it is absolutely fascinating to see the physichal and mental battle unfold which makes the sport amazingly accessible even to people who don´t know jack about the technical aspects of the game and even those seem just obvious enough for casual onlookers to think they get it (i´d put myself somewhat in between, knowing a bit and even having played some but being far from able to actually discuss nuances)

Heck, both semifinals were almost as great and fascinating as the final was


as a side note : Did you know that of the last 28 Grand Slam tournaments, Federer/Nadal/Djokovic combine for 27 of the wins ? (and before 2011 Federer/Nadal won 21 of 23

The sport produces such dominant players, kind of like "the only way to get to the top is to become so utterly amazing that you are way above anyone outside the Top3 behind you". Sometimes it´s 2 or 3 guys kind of at the same time (and then mostly divided by surface), but rarely did you have a revolving door at the top.
Guess that´s both a blessing and a curse (not much unpredictability).



as for the discussion here : I must admit that i was fascinated by the Isner-Mahut-match, but more as sort of a "human interest" thing and just being drawn into the whole narrative of going to and beyond your own physichal barriers. Objectively i knew it wasn´t great tennis by the time it really got dramatic, but then again that´s hardly surprising.

And at least for me i really don´t judge it that way just for the style they played with, i allways enjoyed Sampras at Wimbledon f.e. (but in general i think hardcourt is best to watch)

[korme]

In a way I feel bad for Nadal. Played all those years at number 2, and it seems he finally passed Federer in terms of skill level (due to his hitting his peak and Fed on a slight downslope), and now that spot at the top was short lived.

However, do you guys feel Nadal still has the edge at the French Open?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We can certainly agree to disagree here. I think some people, myself included, would be turned away from tennis as a result of the match.

Of course with how good Nadal, Djoko, Fed and Murray are right now we are spoiled in watching 4 of the greatest of all time and trying to compare it with the rest. These 4 just roll over the best of players right now so the standard they have set is just so high.

My only disappointment in the top 3 players right now is that all of them are so likable it is hard to have a rooting interest in a side when they play. I usually want Fed to win but its damn near impossible to root against Nadal as the match happens.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by korme

In a way I feel bad for Nadal. Played all those years at number 2, and it seems he finally passed Federer in terms of skill level (due to his hitting his peak and Fed on a slight downslope), and now that spot at the top was short lived.

However, do you guys feel Nadal still has the edge at the French Open?

Nadal will be favored on clay. The court coverage of Djoko is so amazing its hard to image him losing on clay unless he makes a lot of unforced errors(basically the mirror of Nadal). If they end up playing it could be a 7 hour 5 setter.

Also, Im not so certain Federer has lost much skill. Nadal and Djoko have just taken tennis to an entire new level that has never been seen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

John Isner of U.S. stuns Roger Federer to pad Davis Cup lead - ESPN

[stevew]

7 Days in Hell: Trailer (HBO) - YouTube

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by stevew

7 Days in Hell: Trailer (HBO) - YouTube

Hmmm I don't remember any of that happening.

[whomario]

I laughed Also, Jon Snow still knows nothing ...

[Suicane75]

"You don't understand. I was a GREAT hockey player. I was only bad, compared to other hockey players".

[Brian Swartz]

John Isner is at it again. Tied 6-6 with Cilic in the 5th of their third-round match, which will probably be suspended due to darkness soon.

[Brian Swartz]

Suspended at 10-all after Isner holds from 0-30 with two aces and an unreturnable.