Night Tennis

Next year marks the 50th anniversary of a major US Open innovation that hasn't just lasted the test of time, but has proven to be one of the most popular features of the tournament year after year.  While it's since been adopted by both the Australian Open and French Open (and Wimbledon to a lesser extent), it's still synonymous with the US Open.  Night tennis.

US Open night matches are the big draw where celebrities are seen and top players are on the court.  Any tennis fan has their favorite memories from a US Open night match, whether they were there in person or just watching on TV.  Whether it's the five-setter that lasts until the wee hours of the morning, the massive upset where the crowed willed the underdog to victory, the heroic performance by a champion or even a grand farewell, US Open night matches are the biggest stage for some of the biggest moments (and names) in the sport.

There was a stretch when the women's final was played in prime time.  Now both women's semifinals are.  So is one of the men's semifinals, which is the final night match of the tournament.  It's a big deal to play at night.  But it's also incredibly difficult.  And it's not something all players necessarily enjoy.

Don't get me wrong.  There are some players who absolutely loved the spotlight that came with playing US Open night matches!  Jimmy Connors and Andre Agassi always wanted to play at night.  For several years after Agassi retired and Andy Roddick was the top American, you knew that his first-round match would most likely be on Opening Night, usually with one of the Williams Sisters joining him.  Then, after we entered the Big Three Era, if you had a night session ticket during the first week, you were all but guaranteed to see either Roger, Rafa or Nole.

As I said, though, many players don't relish the idea of playing at night.  They see it as a necessary evil more than anything else.  And, since the night sessions are the most popular among the fans, they're a necessary evil that disproportionately affect the top players.  Playing night matches, especially long ones, can impact the rest of your tournament.  Which isn't a coincidence.  They throw your body completely out of whack and it takes a few days to recover.

That's been a regular topic of conversation on ESPN during the night matches.  Especially when they go later into the night.  James Blake, who played a few night matches in his day, has described what it's like for the players.  He's particularly cognizant of how late they end up getting to bed after a night match.  Because, don't forget, they still have to do a press conference, get whatever post-match treatment they may need, grab a bite to eat and go back to wherever they're staying before they can even think about going to bed...which probably isn't happening until at least two hours after the match ends at the earliest.

Then, they have to figure out a time the next day so they can prepare for their next match, which they can only hope will have a later start (although, not as late as their previous match).  If they're one of the top players, that probably means another night match.  If they're the lower-ranked player who pulls the upset, they're likely getting shipped right back to the outer courts, so who knows what time they're gonna end up playing?!

I also question the fairness of the same players getting night matches over and over.  That's especially true in Australia, where I don't even remember the last time Novak Djokovic played in the afternoon or morning (I guess when you're a 10-time champion, you have some clout).  The US Open has traditionally been better at spreading the night matches around, but Djokovic and Carlos Alcaraz both only played night matches in Arthur Ashe Stadium this year.  The other top men either played during the day or, if they did get a night match, it was in Louis Armstrong Stadium.

Was it fair to Djokovic and Alcaraz to make them have the late start/finish/bedtime multiple times throughout the tournament?  Or, looking at it the other way, is it fair to the other players who didn't get to be featured while Djokovic and Alcaraz had the spotlight every night?  (Don't get me wrong, they've both earned it.  That's not my point.)  And what about the fans?  There are obviously people who have no issue seeing the likes of Djokovic & Alcaraz repeatedly, but you've got to figure there are also those who wouldn't mind seeing somebody else, too.

The other obvious question about fairness has to do with the second match during the night sessions.  These are the matches that end up going well past midnight, and that's usually as a result of the length of the previous match (or matches, since sometimes a long day session pushes the start of the night session back).  They aren't just starting later, they don't know exactly when they're starting.  Especially if the men's match is first.  It could be a quick three-setter that's done in two hours or a four-and-a-half-hour five-setter where you need to start your warmup multiple times...only for the previous match to keep going!

On Friday night, Arnya Sabalenka played the second match on Ashe.  The Djokovic-Popyrin match that preceded hers lasted over three hours.  As a result, she didn't take the court until close to midnight.  When you're starting that late, there's no way to avoid finishing well after midnight.  So, the question really becomes if you should be starting matches that late at all.

You can look at it one of two ways.  Midnight-ish start times obviously aren't ideal, but the winner at least knows that they'll get a day off between rounds, whereas, if their match was postponed, they wouldn't.  It also gives the fans more bang for their buck since they paid for two matches.  If they don't want to stay for the second one because of how late it is, that's their choice.  The late finishes also keep the tournament on schedule, which helps the organizers since they don't have to move the next day's matches around.

However, there's also the school of thought that there should be a curfew.  It's not like Wimbledon's hard 11 PM curfew, but rather a cutoff time that matches can't start after.  Matches that are still going can be completed.  But, once that cutoff time hits, any matches that haven't begun get pushed to the next day.  That would, hopefully, get everyone home at a reasonable hour while also not making the player wait around for the previous match on their court to end so that theirs can start.  This has become a bit of a hot-button issue with the players, too, so I'm curious to see if anything will come of it.

One thing is for sure, though.  Night matches at the US Open aren't going anywhere.  Nobody wants them to.  They're as much a part of the event as New York, blue courts and the honey deuce.  But could we see some changes to how they're scheduled as we head into the 50th anniversary of night tennis in 2025?  I wouldn't be surprised.