I have spent an inordinate amount of time on the Fast4 format, which is ironic since it doesn’t even appear in the USTA Friend at Court. I want to think that I will be closing out this topic today, but in glancing ahead at Appendix V, Alternative Procedures and Scoring Methods, I see that short set tie-breaks is on the horizon, which will precipitate one more Fast4 coda.
Yesterday I wrote about the NTRP National Championships and why I regard it as a generally positive initiative of the USTA. My primary reservation about the event is the Fast4 scoring format. I genuinely wish the event was conducted under the traditional scoring methods. For reasons that I cannot exactly put my finger on, it would make me happier if the event was titled the “NTRP Fast4 National Championships.” Perhaps it is because the additional qualifier opens the door that one day there might be a separate NTRP National Championship with traditional scoring.
The project that has me writing this post today is centered on rules of the game as presented in the USTA Friend at Court. So rabbit trails aside, this results in a rules centric focus that might give the impression that my reservations about Fast4 are rooted in an emotional attachment to the traditional rules of tennis. I have had a lot of time to think about this since I played in the inaugural NTRP event, play in UTR tournaments that also use the format, and have written about this topic on and off since I originally encountered it.
I am convinced that my dislike of Fast4 is sourced from the belief that it fundamentally changes the nature of the competition in tennis.
Whether Fast4 is played as two out of three sets, as it is at the NTRP National Championships, or two sets with a match tie-break as I have played in UTR events, it takes conditioning off the table. I regard conditioning in tennis as an essential part of the strategic and tactical game. It is the single area of tennis development that is completely in the control of the player.
At the 2018 event I had a fairly long conversation with the tournament director, Michael Hughes, about Fast4. He made the point that there were a lot of retirements from the matches at that event as evidence that the shortened format is needed. I fundamentally do not think that the game should be altered to accommodate players who show up to compete without being in shape to actually do so effectively. For me, there are a lot of other tactics I would prefer to use before resorting to simply outlasting my opponents, but it should not be codified out of the game.
Tennis competition is transactional in nature. I will start a match with a game plan to which my opponent responds. Based on that response I may need to make strategic or tactical adjustments. My opponent is doing the same thing. It is the very essence of tennis and the part of the game that I love. Fast4, changes the tempo of these adjustments. In a four game set, there really isn’t enough time to fully evaluate if a particular tactic is working or not.
In 2019, senior tennis players and coaches Brent Abel and Jeff Jacklich put out a daily podcast titled “Gold Ball Hunting.” They covered a wide range of topics on tennis competition which included a recurring theme of “finding a different way to lose.” This was sometimes framed as slowing down the rate of losing to simply ride out an opponent’s hot streak. Fast4 doesn’t allow any margin for riding out an opponent’s hot streak.
When the ATP used Fast4 for the Next Gen ATP Finals, they did so in a best 3 of 5 format. That effectively lengthens the match to be roughly equivalent to best 2 of 3 traditional sets. That ameliorates my primary issues with Fast4. I think I would like playing the format best 3 of 5.
A few days ago, I published a picture of the NTRP National Championship trophy on my mantle. This was done to deter the perception that my disdain for the Fast4 format rooted in negative personal experience with the format. Expressed more bluntly, because I lost. To be clear, I have played in the NTRP National Championship exactly once. I lost. The trophy proudly on display in my house belongs to my husband. It is for the 2019 3.5 50 and over National Championship in men’s doubles.
I earned an endorsement from my section to play the event in 2019 and 2020, but declined participation. For me, it is simply too much travel overhead to play what is not enough tennis, precipitated by the abbreviated scoring format. I happily play local UTR tournaments that effectively use Fast4. I am not opposed to the format. I am opposed to traveling half way across the country to play the format.
I am opting to allocate my tennis travel dollars and time to play Category 1 National Championships, which plays traditional long form tennis. If the scoring format was changed for the NTRP National Championships I would probably reconsider how I prioritize my tournament schedule.
- United States Tennis Association (2020) Friend at Court. White Plains, NY
- Gold Ball Hunting, viewed 2/27/2020
- New Rules, Next Gen ATP Finals, viewed February 20, 2020.
