In mid-October, there was high praise for Wimbledon when Philip Brook, the chairman of All-England Club, suggested that the tournament might become the second of the four Grand Slam events to adopt a tiebreaker for deciding final sets, following the US Open’s lead. However, amidst all the praise, an important detail seemed to have been overlooked – Wimbledon, instead of implementing a tiebreaker at 6-all as is customary, opted for it at 12-all. Final sets are traditionally played with no tiebreaker, a significant aspect of tennis tradition, particularly at Wimbledon.
The most notable and historic tennis match was the first-round encounter between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut in 2010, lasting three days and ending with a score of 70-68 in the fifth set in Isner’s favor. Isner subsequently struggled and lost in the next match, a common occurrence for winners of prolonged matches. Such marathon matches are rare and typically occur in the later stages of a tournament.
However, an unexpected surge in lengthy matches occurred in 2018 at the three Grand Slam events without a tiebreaker, with approximately 39 matches going into overtime, a highly unusual occurrence. Isner, who had a chance to play in the Wimbledon final, lost out, while Anderson excelled in the match.
Isner endured physical toll, including losing four toenails, and missed the opportunity to challenge the resurgent Novak Djokovic. Ultimately, Wimbledon faced criticism due to a lackluster final and sparked a reconsideration of prolonging matches by tournament officials after the event concluded.
