The Insidious Rise of Fast4

The “global launch” of Fast4 tennis occurred in January 2015 at a series of exhibitions sponsored by Tennis Australia. The first event featured an exhibition match between Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt. In the run up to that inaugural event, it was marketed as a “stunning new format” that was “perfect for those keen to fit a fun and competitive tennis match into a busy lifestyle.” A second exhibition that involved Rafael Nadal playing multiple players was conducted two days later.

While promotional articles written about the match are not a fair substitute for market analysis performed to identify problem and develop potential solutions, in this case it will have to be used as a proxy because there isn’t anything else published that is better suited for that purpose. As is apparent from the promotion, the planners of this particular exhibition were positioning the format as a solution for recreational players who wanted to play more tennis but simply did not have the time. In other words, the problem that Fast4 was proposed to solve is that it takes too long to play tennis.

What is interesting to me about that supposition is that I am unable to find any documented concern over the length of time it takes to play tennis for recreational players. However, switching the sport from tennis to golf reveals a plethora of published materials expressing that concern. For example, a Reuters article from the same year that the Fast4 “global launch” exhibition was held, outlines the participation problem in golf very clearly. People simply were not playing golf because of the length of time it takes to play. This effect was particularly protracted for the 24-44 age demographic for golf.

Similar articles, research, and information indicating that length of play as an issue for tennis simply do not exist. Perhaps no one ever commissioned such a study. It is also possible that one of more studies were conducted, but that the results were closely held and not published. Another alternative explanation is that no research was never done at all and that tennis organizations simply attempted to leverage research from other sports or worse, just copy what other sports were trying to do to increase participation. If there is evidence that the length of time it takes to play tennis has been studied and documented as a real issue, I would love to review the research.

One very interesting thing about the exhibitions to showcase the Fast4 format in 2015 is that the matches were played best 3 of 5. In other words the “Short” format was played in a “Long” format that roughly equates to best 2 of 3 conventional sets. That would seem to be a lack of commitment to shorter being better.

The Next Gen ATP Finals in 2019 used Fast4 scoring format, however it also used the 3 out of 5 set format. The Next Gen ATP finals can be thought of an an exhibition with prize money. No ranking points are awarded for the tournament and it is not sanctioned by the ITF. In this case a lot of experimental rules and practices were used, and it seems like the ATP is kicking around ideas for maintaining spectator interest after the current stars of the game retire. There were a lot more rule experimentation at that event other than just Fast4 that I will most certainly be writing about as those topics are encountered in the Friend at Court.

In the case of the Next Gen ATP finals, Fast4 was not used to shorten matches significantly beyond what the best 2 of 3 would have accomplished because it takes the same number of games to win a match in either case. So that usage of the format seems to be centered around generating novelty rather than addressing an actual problem.

The now defunct Hopman Cup exhibition also used the Fast4 format for mixed doubles. The event website touted the format as being very popular by the Western Australian tennis community with more than a third of league players around the state using the format prior to the Hopman adoption. I am not sure how league playing formats are determined in Australia, but in the USTA jurisdictions, the scoring format is dictated by the regional association sanctioning the league. The players don’t exactly get a vote, so the number of players playing a particular format is not equivalent to a player preference.

Clearly Fast4 has it’s proponents who are willing to promote and push hard for the scoring system. For my part, I do not see the problem that Fast4 might be trying to solve nor have I experienced any evidence of a grassroots desire of recreational players to shorten the game. It’s a conundrum.

1. Nine serves up FAST4 tennis, David Knox, TV Tonight (Australia), December 23, 2014
2. Golf-A round of golf takes too long to play, survey finds, Reuters, April 27, 2015.
3. Roger Federer beats Lleyton Hewitt in Fast4 exhibition tennis match, ABC News Australia, January 12, 2015, viewed 21 February 2020.
4. New Rules, Next Gen ATP Finals, viewed February 20, 2020.
5. FAST4 for Mastercard Hopman Cup mixed doubles, Hopman Cup, viewed February 21, 2020.