By Shrivathsa Sridhar
NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) – When the dust settled on Ben Shelton’s shock win over defending champion Carlos Alcaraz at 3:33 a.m. on Wednesday in the latest-ever finish at the U.S. Open, organisers faced a question that had been forming for days: how late is too late?
The concern was not sparked by one marathon alone as three matches ended after 2 a.m. during the Grand Slam’s opening week, while two more ran well beyond midnight and Venus Williams was involved in the latest-starting clash that began at 12:13 a.m.
“Yeah, it’s not ideal. I would have preferred something else definitely,” said the 46-year-old Williams after losing to Sofia Kenin in the first round.
“I don’t know any other sport where you have to start that late. I definitely think there’s room for improvement.”
The issue has gained added resonance amid a broader push by top players for increased prize money and reforms on welfare and working conditions, with late finishes emerging as a flashpoint in the debate over life on the tour.
Like the U.S. Open, the Australian Open has faced criticism for notoriously late finishes but the other two Grand Slams have imposed checks, with Wimbledon halting play under an 11 p.m. local curfew and the French Open limiting night sessions to one match.
Yet a solution such as starting evening sessions earlier than 7 p.m. is complicated by the argument that tennis-mad New Yorkers need time to get to Flushing Meadows after work and organisers having to manage day- and night-session crowds.
The tension between spectacle and scheduling was laid bare again on Tuesday after a string of marathon contests kept fans enthralled while pushing play deep into the early hours of Wednesday.
“Tuesday was one of the most extraordinary days of tennis the U.S. Open has ever seen,” a U.S. Open spokesperson said.
“While we remain astonished by the incredible competition that played out on court – four matches that went a maximum of 16 sets and featured three final-set tiebreaks – we acknowledge that we must evaluate all scheduling options in the future.
“The focus and attention must remain on these remarkable athletes and their amazing performances rather than on the finishing time.”
THINNER CROWDS FOR LATE MATCHES
While late finishes have done little to deter spectators from flocking to the venue, some matches have unfolded before thinner crowds as fans weighed up long journeys home against staying put for the action.
For American world number three Jessica Pegula, the debate extends beyond player recovery times and competitive fairness to the wider impact of matches that continue long after midnight on fans, broadcasters, support staff and the media.
“It’s just a scheduling thing. There’s just so many matches and I know that they’re dealing with a lot of different aspects as far as broadcast and TV, and making sure certain matches get done and are starting at a certain time,” Pegula said.
“But you have to wonder if it’s really the right thing for players to be finishing at 2 a.m., especially when (people) aren’t watching on TV… Some people stay but there’s a lot of people that need to go home.
“I definitely question whether there isn’t a better way or starting an hour earlier or something different.”
Another suggestion that surfaces whenever late finishes dominate the conversation is reducing men’s matches to best-of-three sets in the earlier rounds, though the idea is contentious among those who view five-set matches as central to Grand Slams.
“I think for the men’s we should stick with three out of five,” American world number 12 Frances Tiafoe said.
I don’t know where the conversation is going, what people are leaning to. Everyone is going to have an opinion; everyone is different,” Tiafoe added.
“We’ve seen so many epics in five-setters. Do I love five-setters? Absolutely not. There’s a lot of times where I’m up two sets to love and I’d love to shake hands and go home. But it’s tennis, man.”
(Reporting by Shrivathsa Sridhar in New York; editing by Clare Fallon)
Comments