Tuesday evening's quarter-final clash delivered everything a US Open spectacle demands: enormous stakes, razor-thin margins, elite-level competition and an American competitor who prevails when it matters most. The singular drawback centred on timing. The opening serve came at 11:05 p.m., and Shelton's winning ace arrived at 3:33 a.m. following 4 hours 28 minutes of play, establishing a new record as the latest-finishing match in US Open history – surpassing the previous mark by 43 minutes.
In the aftermath of this late-night marathon, discussion among commentators and spectators has rapidly shifted from the USTA's scheduling failures toward a broader reckoning with the five-set format itself and whether it deserves elimination. To be clear: such a decision would represent a catastrophic strategic blunder.
Why five-set matches define grand slam tennis
Five-setters transcend mere tradition in the men's game – they function as a hallmark of legitimacy, demonstrating that a competitor genuinely possesses the calibre required to succeed at the sport's highest level. John Isner never captured a major championship during his career. Yet his reputation among fellow professionals and devotees rests substantially on his capacity to endure gruelling contests, particularly the legendary 2010 Wimbledon encounter against Nicolas Mahut, which remains etched in collective memory.
The best-of-five structure serves as the defining framework for the sport's most celebrated contests and validates the achievements of its greatest champions. Even competitors who fall short gain immortality simply through participation in these epics. Mahut himself reflected on this paradox in 2015, observing that despite losing his marathon match against Isner, people would remember the contest regardless of the outcome – suggesting that a decade later, observers might even misremember who prevailed.
Five-setters represent the ultimate test of athletic character – a crucible that demands endurance, mental fortitude and unwavering concentration. This applies equally to the athletes competing and the global audiences following along. The experience of watching tennis derives much of its appeal from the communal viewing sessions that materialise across social platforms whenever an Australian Open match extends the distance. Spectators unable to remain awake through the entire marathon – risking oversleeping for work or disturbing household members with enthusiastic reactions – wake to discover the fifth set still unfolding as they prepare for their day. The Australian Open, more than any other major, exemplifies why some view five-setters as problematic. Yet genuine tennis enthusiasts recognise the Happy Slam for what it truly represents: an initiation into the sport's deepest traditions. The fact that observers display little surprise at the US Open's Melbourne-like hours reflects a telling detail: Craig Tiley, formerly leading Tennis Australia, now directs the USTA.
The physical toll and the modernisation debate
Despite the honour and prestige accumulated through five-set marathons, the physical demands they impose on competitors have become increasingly difficult to overlook. The pressure to maintain demanding touring schedules places athletes at growing risk of injury and tournament absences due to accumulated fatigue. This tension between honouring tradition and embracing evolution has fuelled an ongoing debate about five-setters that has intensified over recent years.
Last month, incoming Tennis Australia CEO Andrew Abdo proposed exploring alternative formats.
Maybe we're not playing best of five all the way through. Maybe the point scoring system changes. Maybe there are different permutations to how we engage and entertain audiences without losing the fabric, and what really makes the sport special.Abdo's suggestions – arriving after his predecessor Tiley had advocated for women to compete in five-set matches – might have generated limited attention if Novak Djokovic, the slam record-holder whose dominance was built on five-set victories, hadn't first proposed modifying the scoring system. His concept would preserve five sets while reducing the number of games required to win each set. Though Djokovic was partly joking when making this suggestion in response to a question designed to provoke fan reaction, his remarks prompted John McEnroe to deploy his characteristic inflammatory rhetoric.
People's attention spans are shorter than ever,McEnroe declared – the same player who lost an epic five-set Wimbledon final in 1980 that became canonised in tennis lore.
However prominent these voices, they have not yet overwhelmed the five-set traditionalists. Frances Tiafoe, after narrowly defeating fellow American Alex Michelsen in a match that would have concluded much earlier under proposed scoring changes, articulated the counterargument:
Do I love five setters? Absolutely not. When I'm up two sets to love I would love to shake hands and go home. But it's tennis, man. I grew up watching incredible tennis, incredible five setters. Novak vs Rafa, Federer vs Rafa. Incredible five setters which go on for hours and hours. That is the history of the game.
The Shelton-Alcaraz epic and scheduling realities
The quarter-final between Shelton and Alcaraz authored another chapter in five-set lore, transforming Arthur Ashe Stadium into an atmosphere resembling a late-night establishment after closing time. Shelton's victory snapped Alcaraz's 18-match Grand Slam winning streak, and the American, still recovering from the exertion, jokingly requested that his sister's employer at Morgan Stanley grant her the day off – she was scheduled to return by 6 a.m. As the competitors contested the final points with Tuesday transitioning into Wednesday, custodial staff could be observed cleaning the stadium and grounds in preparation for the next day's crowds. Social media filled with accounts from US Open patrons who endured until the conclusion, sharing videos of exhausted ball attendants rushing back into the city before school commenced and documenting the extraordinary surge pricing for rideshare services home.
The solution to late-night matches need not involve dismantling the five-set framework entirely. A straightforward remedy exists that preserves the men's game's fundamental structure: the USTA could relocate one of its primetime features to Louis Armstrong Stadium, situated adjacent to Ashe, and advance start times to prevent play from extending substantially past midnight. The Shelton-Alcaraz match began late because Jessica Pegula and Emma Navarro required three sets to complete their quarter-final, which itself was delayed by afternoon matches running long. Yet implementing such scheduling adjustments would necessitate forgoing the substantial revenue that Ashe generates through its expanded capacity and premium suites – and the organisation appears reluctant to accept marginally reduced income.
How tennis has already evolved
The sport has undergone considerable transformation already. Electronic line-calling systems, 10-point tiebreaks, on-court coaching, and the serve clock represent changes that the traditionally conservative sport has successfully integrated without compromising its fundamental character. These modifications demonstrate that tennis can be refined for pace and entertainment value while maintaining its essential integrity.
What renders the discourse surrounding five-set elimination particularly troubling, especially when articulated by those who competed in these marathons, is a fundamental misapprehension about how time functions in tennis versus other sports. In football, extended duration typically signals dysfunction – a coach unwilling to deploy timeouts efficiently. In basketball, excessive fouling artificially prolongs contests that would otherwise conclude in seconds. In tennis, however, a match stretching across hours represents the inverse: it signals quality and competitive intensity, an implicit endorsement to viewers that they are witnessing something exceptional. If audience engagement constitutes the primary objective, the dramatic potential of a fifth set – capable of sustaining viewership, attracting new audiences, and extending the primetime window for West Coast viewers – should incentivise those committed to expanding tennis's appeal to strengthen their commitment to five-setters, not abandon them.
What happens next
Shelton is scheduled to face Frances Tiafoe in the US Open semifinals on Friday, continuing his improbable run through the draw. The broader question of whether five-set tennis survives as a cornerstone of grand slam competition remains unresolved, with administrators and players continuing to weigh tradition against modernisation pressures.
One can envision the generational divide that would emerge if the five-set format ever disappeared: future players enduring lectures from cranky predecessors who competed in five-set marathons of earlier eras, insisting that genuine champions were forged through those gruelling contests. That represents no fitting conclusion for a sport possessing an already magnificent ending.
