Parting Thoughts about the 2026 US Open and Proposed Rule Changes

What happens in a sport where “you can’t run out the clock” and a Grand Slam tournament that starts men’s matches at an insanely late 11:10 p.m. in a “city that never sleeps”?

What happens in a sport where “you can’t run out the clock” and a Grand Slam tournament that starts men’s matches at an insanely late 11:10 p.m. in a “city that never sleeps”?

You get an outrageously late, record-breaking 3:33 a.m. finish to a terrific US Open quarterfinal with Ben Shelton and Carlos Alcaraz playing on adrenaline while enthralled spectators fought off yawns. “Big Shot Ben” unleashed a 146-mph ace on match point to wrap up a 6-7 (5), 6-1, 6-3, 1-6, 7-6 (10-7) upset. The Arthur Ashe Stadium crowd rewarded the rising star and the returning superstar with a standing ovation. That apparently wasn’t enough for the hyped-up Shelton, who milked it by pointing to his ear.

What can the US Open do to prevent these all-too-common ultra-late-night matches that exhaust spectators, umpires, ball kids, tournament staff, and the media—and force millions of sleepy TV viewers to go to bed and miss the thrilling fifth set, if not more?

Start the evening session at 6 p.m. and end all matches at 1 a.m., regardless of the score. Suspended matches would resume the following afternoon or evening. Afternoon sessions would start at 11 a.m. and end no later than 6 p.m.

You have to admire the resilience of Alexander Zverev. Within a three-month span, the late-blooming, 29-year-old German went from “the best player never to win a major” to the best player of 2026 by winning Roland Garros, reaching the Wimbledon final, and capturing the US Open.

Zverev added speed and consistency to both his forehand and second serve and sharpened his net game. In short, he became a more complete, versatile, confident, and exciting player.

However, Zverev's crowd appeal was diminished by incessant ball bouncing before his first and second serves—always at least 10 times and occasionally more than 20 times. Sascha glanced at the 25-second clock to stop his boring bouncing before his first serve to avoid a time violation. But he gets away with violating the spirit of this rule on the second serve.

Former No. 1 Andy Roddick, now a Tennis Channel analyst, put Zverev’s idiosyncratic bouncing best, saying, “Until they have a shot clock before the second serve, Zverev is not breaking the rules, even though his ball bouncing is absolutely annoying.” His habit also—intentionally or unintentionally—disrupts the rhythm of the serve returner who doesn’t know when the ball bouncing will end and the actual serve will start. In the final, Shelton didn’t bother to get ready to split step until Zverev bounced the ball seven or eight times.

So, what is the remedy for excessive, time-wasting, obnoxious, and rhythm-breaking ball bouncing before second serves?

Some experts advocate a new rule requiring an 8-second serve clock between the missed first serve and the second serve. Players breaking the rule would receive a warning for the first violation and a point penalty for the second violation.

This rule would be fairer for serve returners. Just as important, it would speed up play for spectators and shorten marathon matches.

Jim Courier, another former No. 1 and now a Tennis Channel commentator, voiced less clarity and consistency on this critical issue. First, Courier said, “Tennis matches over four hours are the ones you remember most.” Then he said that he favored the traditional 5-set men’s format at Grand Slam events. So far, so good.

But then Courier said, “I mean, I think eventually we are going to have to evolve, and I think the first little move forward will probably and should be, let’s go to no-ad scoring, [because] that will shrink the length of matches somewhat.”

That so-called “little move” to adopt no-ad scoring would ruin the time-tested and brilliant traditional scoring system. Why?

The fluctuating crises of ad-in and ad-out—surrounding the temporary sanctuary of deuce—bring out our best and worst and thus add a true excitement and strategic richness to tennis.

The scoring systems should offer a fair test of superiority, the sine qua non of any athletic competition. Under the present system, the odds are clearly greater that the more skillful and determined player will eventually win a given game. Unquestionably, the no-ad method unfairly boosts the chances of the underdog who needs only one point to win a game from deuce. This is because the fluke shot, the bad bounce, and the lucky (or unlucky) net cord all assume undue significance.

Furthermore, as former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash pointed out, “The mental strength required to break serve or hold serve on deuce after deuce is one of the great skills of a champion and turns around matches.”

A final ironic point is that sometimes no-ad scoring lengthens matches—instead of shortening them, the stated goal—because the inferior player can more easily win games and sets. And if women’s tennis adopts no-ad scoring, decisive two-set matches would likely end in 25 or 30 minutes.

Let’s not mutilate, debase, and degrade our brilliant scoring system by foolishly adopting no-ad scoring.

Paul Fein
Sept. 23, 2026