Social media allows anyone to voice their opinions on the most relevant topics, and least relevant topics you can imagine. That is the beauty and the curse of the world being so inter-connected. I’m not here to critique or praise that, however. Due to the nature of online discourse, and due to the fact I do watch a lot of sport, probably too much, I’ve seen discourse on X recently, saying that the fact that the Showcourts at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, which of course hosts Wimbledon every summer, open for business every day at 1pm for matches on No.1 Court, and at 1:30 for matches on Centre Court. This argument comes about every year, whenever one of the evening matches doesn’t end before the 11pm curfew. People who critique this minor issue see the curfew, and start times on the Showcourts as archaic, and that it’s of a by-gone era. I completely disagree. Wimbledon’s traditions and history make it Wimbledon. It is the most renowned tennis tournament in the world for a reason.
Why Wimbledon’s storied history cannot be replaced; and replaced especially with friendlier start times for all courts, plus an abolition of the curfew like the French, Australian and US Opens can go back as recently as last night, and the thriller that took place on Centre Court between seven time champion Novak Djokovic and Canadian Felix Auger-Aliassime, a mammoth of a match that lasted five hours and fifteen minutes; the longest Wimbledon quarter-final ever, and one of the best matches ever seen on Centre Court. The race against time to get the match finished before curfew between two incredible players was nothing short of an incredible watch, as Djokovic edged out the Canadian to reach his eighth consecutive Wimbledon semi-final in a row.
Sporting drama of the highest level. Now, that fate did not befall Alexander Zverev’s fourth-round match the evening prior, which is where the discourse has originated from this year. Due to the fact that the two matches that were on Centre Court had ended just shy of two and a half hours and four hours respectively, there was little time left for Zverev, or his opponent Jiri Lehecka to get the job done. They fought for two hours and six minutes before the plug was pulled, Zverev two sets to love up, and with the third set level at three games all, it was a shame. But there is a certain novelty to Wimbledon’s curfew, something quite respectable even. This is the All England Club we’re on about here. They don’t operate with the same level of strictness that Augusta National do, but the reason behind this curfew is simple; they care about the local people. Specifically, they protect them from “late-night disturbances.”
There is no doubt that Wimbledon has innovated of late. Line judges were out of a job last year, replaced by the ELC (Electronic Line Calling) system, and that technology, despite rendering people jobless, does do a good job. To my recollection, there have been no serious mess-ups. Good for tennis, but does it damage some of the history of the Championships? Perhaps, which is why it’s so important that such “archaic” measures, in the eyes of the fearsome armchair “experts” remain in place, is to stop Wimbledon being the same as the rest of the other Grand Slams in terms of when matches begin, and when they have to stop outright. To rid Wimbledon of what makes it special, iconic and unique would be a crime, not punishable by law, but death by public outrage. In today’s increasingly divisive world, to be condemned to that fate is the worst possible outcome in the world.
So here’s to more late night, but not too late night Wimbledon drama, to five set epics that race towards 11pm, to the BBC News at Ten being delayed due to magnificence from the likes of Djokovic, Sinner and Alcaraz, and to creating sporting memories that will be forever remembered in the sporting cultural zeitgeist. In simpler terms, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
