© Daniil Medvedev
Coco Gauff eventually came up the winner against Karolina Muchova in the U.S. Open semifinal with a 40-stroke rally. It was epic and worth it as Gauff proved to be the winner of the one point, but some have other ideas. Many fans I’ve heard say, the longer the rally, the more boring; others say ‘why would you ever need 40 shots to win one point?’ That is bad math.
Yet some say it builds in the crescendo of earning the point and keeps things suspenseful. Rallying has it’s advantages but time isn’t one of them. If a vote was taken, how many players would want to be on the court longer than 2 or 3 hours of any given match.
If an opponent comes out the winner of the slugfest and is scheduled to play the next day, they could be not only mentally but physically wasted. It would be good for the winner but if the next day is the championship round, all energies are heavily compromised.
The crowd will suffer from restlessness and at first break to get refreshments and food. Matches will be long and the day will be longer. Who’s to say if all the matches would be played that day. Long rallies and time restraints are of the essence.
In relation to the player’s health, long rallying matches…
