New tweet from k_skupski:

"Still waiting..."


Geez... what happens if they don't finish TODAY?!?! Surely the officials can't just arbitrarily tell the to stop, so it'll have to go on and they may have to put the tournament back a day or something?! I have no idea how they'd get round that.

Yea, my little pep talk to John worked 

6 - 4    3 - 6    6 - 7 ( 9 )   7 - 6  (3)   70 - 68

And one more pick'em point for me.  Always a banker.

Epic match and I don't think there will ever be another match that goes on for over 11 hours and goes 70-68 in the final set.

Deserved standing ovation for both men and whatever they do for the rest of their careers, they will always be remembered for this match.

Feel sorry for both of them having to potentially come out and play a doubles match later this evening - be surprised if at least one of Isner or Mahut pulls out, and if they do, you can't really blame them.

So, poor Isner could hardly move today and went out in straights. Very tough, but at least he has a place in history.

And I suppose he ought to have been able to put away Mahut much more quickly, a qualifier who had already had 3(?) matches before this - including the rather long one with Boggo. . .

Yes, it was alll very great for history but clearly totally ****ed up Isner's chances of going any fiurther.  Yes I know he had 64 chances earlier in the set to break to win the match and didn't take them but my point is anyone in a marathon is at a big disadvantage for the next match.

Personally I'd be happy with a normal tiebreak in the 5th set.  I like the symmetry in that all the other sets have tiebreaks at 6 all. The "you have to at least break to win the match" doesn't wash since players can win in 3 or 4 sets without achieving a single break. 

If not a normal tiebreak at 6 all in the final set, I would suggest one at 12 all maximum.  Any later and it's potentailly ruining for whoever gets through as regards their next match.

No, have a normal tiebreak at 6 all as at the US Open or as a comprmoise at 12 all, that's my thoughts anyway.

The suggestions I have heard of tiebreaks at such as 20 all and 30 all are just silly since such scores are so rare anyway and the damage would be very well done by then anyway.

Yeah, I predicted Isner going pretty far in the tournament, since he'd been tipped as the outside chance for the title, but pretty much knew that wasn't going to happen after the epic match. I think I even said somewhere (probably Pick'em thread!) whilst the match was still ongoing that his chances of going any further had basically gone out the window.

There are all sorts of suggestions flying around to prevent this in future and give the winner a fair chance of competing in the next round... Most people seem to think that the rules will definitely be revised, but to what? The usual tiebreak placement at 6-6 would seem to be the most obvious and logical choice.

What Isner said was that it doesn't need to be changed because a match like his is never going to be repeated - meaning, that the chances of a match getting that extended are so remote, that basically he doesn't think a rule change is necessary.