Slip, Slap, Drop

Does someone have to become seriously ill before sensible heat rules are developed?

So often in best of five set tennis, winning that 5th and final set is as much about heart and guts than it is about shotmaking and tactics.  In Melbourne more so than the other slams, it's also about physical conditioning.  These matches are often played in uncomfortable, not to say brutally hot conditions, and can last up to five hours.  At the end, winner and loser alike share the sensation of exhaustion that comes from such prolonged exertion in conditions the body does not handle well.

And yet, most of the time, both players walk off court, and the winner is able to take to the court for his next match, perhaps with an empty tank, but reasonably ready to go under the circumstances.

However, weather conditions in Australia this year have been particularly challenging for the natives, and during the Australian Open, temperatures on court reached 40C during the period of play. Spare a thought then for Australia's James Duckworth and Blaz Kavcic of Slovenia, who played for nearly 5 hours in these draining conditions.  Kavcic would take the victory in the end, and stagger off court, but in the locker room he went into full body spasm and needed to be treated by medics.  Blaz seems to be okay, and he will no doubt take to the court on Saturday against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga but his ability to compete has to have been badly affected.  Meanwhile, tennis has dodged another bullet.

Part of this is just the nature of the beast - survival of the fittest has always been an aspect of tennis, and if Jo won his match much more easily than Blaz, and hence starts at a physical advantage, then tough.  The problem here is that the heat policy that the tournament employs is not fit for purpose - it fails at the very moment it is most needed.

The policy is, in a nutshell:

• No new matches can start on outside courts for at least an hour after the policy is implemented
• All matches in progress must be completed
• The Tournament referee may suspend matches if deemed dangerous
• The roofs of both the Rod Laver and Vodafone Arenas can be closed, but only after current matches have been completed
• There is provision for the breaks between games and sets to be made longer than usual during the heat-affected matches

It comes into effect when the temperature hits 35C and the heat stress level reaches 28 - heat stress level being a measure of various factors to determine the intensity of the heat and light.

In spite of this policy, we have seen in the past how it is inadequate to protect the health of players.  The famous Sharapova-Pin match of 2007 is a case in point.  Pin later said her feet burned and her legs were shaking due to the radiant heat coming back off the court.  Sharapova spoke of being delusional.  In another match, Tipsarevic retired in the fifth set against Nalbandian due to the conditions.  Nalbandian himself suffered headaches and dizziness following the match - classic symptoms of heat stroke.

The problem here is the combination of factors - that "all matches in progress must be completed" combined with the long final set in play in Melbourne means that players, like Kavcic and Duckworth, can be out there for hour after draining hour until the match is won by one of them.  There's no provision for the players to agree the conditions are too taxing.  There's the vague provision that the tournament referee may suspend matches if conditions are deemed dangerous - but what does that mean in practice?  What factors determine that the match is now officially "dangerous"?  Kavcic basically collapsed in the locker room after his victory.  Does that mean that match was officially dangerous and should really have been suspended?

The rules right now do little to stop the players avoiding serious health risks.  They have the option to retire, but it is surely wrong to make protecting their health from the extreme conditions a decision solely down to the player - let's keep in mind that for many players, reaching a Grand Slam main draw is a huge deal for them, and it's hard to expect them to throw in the towel under those circumstances - many will choose to try and fight on, and risk health damage in the process.  

Surely with some tweaking of this heat rule policy, some more robust criteria can be used to determine the safety of the conditions - introducing mandatory longer breaks in a cooler, shaded area to give the body's core time to cool before resuming the match?

I am all for the gladiatorial nature of the tennis combat.  I do not want to see tennis made "easy", or lose the thrill of watching two players fight tooth and nail for a place in the next round.  I'm just not sufficiently down with the Romans to want to see a death at the end of it.  I worry, though, that it will take that, or at least a serious health outcome for one or more players, to make them see that these rules need to be changed to protect the players better than they do right now.  Tennis authorities have an unfortunate strain of complacency about this and other matters - they would do well to think in terms of prevention rather than risk having to apologise ex post facto for failing to protect their players.