BIG SERVERS ARE RUINING TENNIS.

Kevin Anderson, the big-serving South African who's made it to the final of the Wimbledon Men's Championship, has been whingeing about the length of his semi-final match against the even bigger-serving American, John Isner which extended to 6½ hours. Apparently, the match went on too long and Anderson wants Wimbledon, along with the French and Australian championships, to curtail the 5th set of men's matches just as they do the first 4, by the use of 'tie breaks'. That the second semi-final was also a marathon - lasting 5hours 17 minutes - but did not have anywhere near the same number of games, is ignored. Anderson and Isner played 99 games with 3 tie breaks, while Djokovic and Nadal played 59 games with only 1 tie-break. Clearly, the length of matches is not a function of the incidence of tie breaks nor even of the number of games played. Having a 5th set tie-break is the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Not that many years ago, 'tie breaks' didn't exist and yet the tennis world managed very nicely. It was only after the integration of the amateur and professional tournaments in the late 1960s that anyone even had the thought of introducing ways of shortening matches, and that had much to do with the American inability to cope with anything which isn't over quickly. 'Tie breaks' at 6 games all in the first 4 sets of men's and 2 sets of women's matches, then most men's tournaments reduced to the best of 3 sets, doubles' matches reduced to 2 sets followed by a quick-fire deciding game of 10 points; all of these measures were introduced in order to shorten matches and, supposedly, heighten the excitement. 

Those of us who remember the epic matches between Pancho Gonzalez and Charlie Pasarell or between Ken Rosewall and Cliff Richey do not need quick-fire endings to raise the pulse. Indeed, a major part of the excitement of a great tennis match is the cut and thrust over multiple sets with a drawn out denouement - no one can be quite sure who will triumph until the final point is won. Sadly, too many modern audiences are far more interested in a quick result than in the drama.

Anderson has been annoyed by the length of his match against Isner though he and Isner are themselves largely to blame. At 6ft 8", Anderson is a giant whose serve is frequently unreturnable; at 6ft 10", Isner is even bigger and has an even more powerful service. Inevitably, if both men are srerving well, the opportunities for their opponents to return serve and actually play some real tennis are few; both players simply hold serve until the tie break comes along which, in the 5th set at Wimbledon, it does not. Consequently, these 2 serving giants 'enjoyed' a long drawn out and pretty boring final set that stretched to 50 games; this was not, though, a result of anything but the playing styles of the 2 men.

Neither Anderson nor Isner can be counted as a great tennis player and, but for their service games, neither would have achieved very much. Rather than pandering to Anderson's call to accommodate players such as himself by artificially reducing the length of matches, surely the tennis authorities should act to make matches more competitive by reducing the dominance of the serve. Most male players are now much taller and stronger than they were 50 years ago; some, like Anderson and Isner, are ridiculously tall and have a huge advantage purely from their height, which masks shortcomings in their overall level of skill.

It is time for the net to be raised a few inches or the service box to be shortened by a few inches. It wouldn't take much to reflect the general change in player stature in recent years but it would dramatically reduce the dominance of players who rely almost entirely on a powerful and largely unreturnable service. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen and American influence will almost certainly lead to shortened matches and the huge, crashing service will slowly become an even more dominant part of the game. Truly great players such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will become no more than distant memories.

The misguided notion that bigger, faster or newer is always better simply doesn't hold water.