Tennis is a sport built by history. Eras are defined by epic matches and great players, and part of this is due to the fact that tennis hasn’t changed much over the years. The racket technology has evolved greatly, and with modern diets and training routines players are now fitter than ever, but the sport itself resembles what it was decades or even a century ago. Yes, Wimbledon has done away with extended deciding sets recently (a decision that seems to have been propelled mainly by a marathon 2018 men’s semifinal between Kevin Anderson and John Isner), with the Australian Open following suit in short order, but tennis’s structure has been reasonably consistent over the years.

In July 2018, the U.S. Open announced that a 25-second serve clock and a five-minute warm-up clock would be put in place for that year’s tournament, with the goal of speeding up play. Since, other tournaments, including the Australian Open, have begun to use the serve clock as well.

The relatively new serve clock is more complicated than what might be indicated at first glance. The 25-second countdown is supposed to start after the umpire declares the score, but the umpire can reset or pause the clock at their discretion (one might give extra time if the crowd’s reaction to a point were especially drawn out, or if the previous rally were particularly draining). Not to mention, the clock stops when a player goes into their motion, not when they actually make contact with the ball. Because of this, someone could in theory take the full 25 seconds, then toss the ball only to catch it and take another 25 seconds.

There are undeniable benefits to the shot clock, however. Few viewers enjoy long pauses between points. Tennis is a sport of forehands and backhands, not ball-bouncing, towel-using, or other routines, and the serve clock promotes an abbreviated break between points. Brad Gilbert dedicated a few pages of his book, Winning Ugly, to Ivan Lendl and his strategy of slowing down the passage of play to bring an opponent’s momentum to a halt (Gilbert dubbed this tactic “Turtle Time”). The serve clock discourages this type of behavior, allowing the ebb and flow of matches to go undisturbed.

Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal are the winners of the two most recent majors on the men’s side (and the owners of the top two slots in the ATP rankings). Djokovic won this year’s Australian Open by claiming a five-set final, and Nadal took the 2019 U.S. Open title after a five-set final. The length of the match isn’t the only commonality, though — both finals were severely impacted by the serve clock.

In last year’s U.S. Open final, Nadal was hit with a time violation in the very first game. The first violation is a soft warning, then all such future transgressions are met with the penalty of losing a first serve; the rule is more lax than the protocol concerning racket smashes, illegal coaching, and verbal abuse (which can result in point/game penalties or defaults).

Losing a first serve can still be enough to impact a match, though — Nadal suffered two further violations in the 2019 U.S. Open final, and he responded to the third penalty by missing his only serve at a potentially crucial moment: break point at 5-2 up in the fifth. The errant serve extended the match for another two games, with Nadal having to save break point at 5-4 before serving out the match.

Djokovic was up 6-4, 4-4 and serving when time violations plagued him during the 2020 Australian Open final. He was pinged with two in the same game, with the second obliging him to hit an extremely slow second serve when break point down (he followed the serve by hitting well long on the next shot). Like Nadal, he eventually recovered to win the match, but the time violations clearly knocked him off course for a time.

Now, Djokovic and Nadal’s time violations were valid. They both went over the 25-second limit. And the point of a rule is for it to be enforced; the umpires made the correct calls. But the question here is whether or not a rule such as the serve clock should have the potential to sway such important matches (for that matter, should the code of conduct either? A racket smash could be met with a fine administered post-match, instead of with a warning or point penalty). Yes, taking a minute between points to recover isn’t in the spirit or interest of the game, but should an extra five seconds be penalized during a major final, with history and glory on the line?

Any change to a sport, however small, is risky. Wimbledon’s installation of a deciding set tiebreak at 12-all ensured that there will never be a repeat of the thrilling 16-14 fifth set that Roger Federer and Andy Roddick produced in the 2009 final. The serve clock, though it has been and will be effective in eliminating excessively long periods between points, will likely also prevent some matches from being extremely long, which will please some fans and upset others.

The serve clock, as with most rules, has pros and cons. It is unlikely to be removed; that’s not the way things are typically done in the world of protocol in sports. But modifications are more realistic, and tennis will search for a way to grow comfortable with one of its newest accessories.

Thanks for reading! If you have questions or feedback, please leave a comment or tweet @tennisnation.