In the early hours of a Wednesday morning, Ben Shelton completed a five-set victory over Carlos Alcaraz at 3:33 a.m., reigniting a perennial question about whether professional tennis asks too much of its audience in pursuit of its own demanding soul. Andy Roddick, the last American man to win the US Open, stepped forward not to dismiss the complaint but to complicate it — arguing that the very qualities that make the sport grueling are the same ones that make it worth watching. The debate sits at a familiar crossroads in sport: the tension between accessibility and authenticity, between the c
Roddick defends US Open's 3:33 a.m. finish as Shelton advances to final
If you take that away, can we lay that claim anymore?
Mark
So Roddick's saying the late finish was unavoidable—that the logistics of moving 25,000 people through the stadium forced their hand. Is that actually true, or is he defending a choice the tournament made?
Mimi
He's describing a real constraint. You can't start the night session earlier without pushing back the earlier match, and Tiafoe's match ran long too. But whether that constraint is immovable or just the current system is a different question.
Luke
Right—he's saying "we had to do this," but what he's really saying is "given how we've structured the tournament, this is what happened." The Open could theoretically start matches earlier, or cap the number of sets, or do a dozen other things. He's defending the current system, not proving it was the only option.
Mark
He seems genuinely conflicted though. He admits five hours is a lot, he sympathizes with people who had to stay up, but then he argues shorter formats would hurt tennis's identity.
Mimi
He's trying to hold two things at once—that the current system is inconvenient and that the inconvenience is part of what makes tennis distinctive. Whether those things can both be true is the real question.
Luke
And he never really answers it. He says "if you take that away, can we lay that claim anymore?" But that's a question, not an argument. He's acknowledging he doesn't know if shorter matches would actually diminish the sport.
Mark
What about the American angle? Shelton and Tiafoe both advancing—that's genuinely significant, right?
Mimi
It's the first time since 2003 that an American could win the men's singles title. That's a 23-year gap. For context, Roddick was the last one, and he's been retired for years. So yes, this moment matters.
Luke
But the source doesn't tell us much about why Americans have been absent from the final for so long, or whether Shelton and Tiafoe are genuinely competitive or just benefited from a particular draw. We know they're there. We don't know if they're favorites.
The Pulse
- A five-set tiebreaker ending at 3:33 a.m. made Ben Shelton the first American man to defeat either Alcaraz or Sinner at a Grand Slam — a historic win swallowed by the dark of night.
- The finish time reignited frustration over US Open scheduling, with critics arguing that matches stretching past dawn alienate casual fans and exhaust everyone involved.
- Roddick pushed back, pointing to the logistical reality of moving 25,000 spectators in and out of Arthur Ashe Stadium as a constraint that limits the tournament's options more than critics acknowledge.
- He conceded the endurance cost — five hours tests any viewer's patience — but warned that shortening the format could strip tennis of its identity as the most physically and mentally demanding sport on earth.
- With Shelton set to face Tiafoe in Friday's semifinal, an American is guaranteed to reach the final for the first time since 2003, giving the late-night drama a historic frame that may outlast the controversy.
In the early hours of a Wednesday morning, Ben Shelton completed a five-set victory over Carlos Alcaraz at 3:33 a.m., reigniting a perennial question about whether professional tennis asks too much of its audience in pursuit of its own demanding soul. Andy Roddick, the last American man to win the US Open, stepped forward not to dismiss the complaint but to complicate it — arguing that the very qualities that make the sport grueling are the same ones that make it worth watching. The debate sits at a familiar crossroads in sport: the tension between accessibility and authenticity, between the comfort of the viewer and the integrity of the contest.
Ben Shelton's racket found the line at 3:33 a.m., completing a five-set tiebreaker over Carlos Alcaraz and making him the first American man to defeat either Alcaraz or Jannik Sinner at a Grand Slam. The finish was historic — and immediately controversial.
Andy Roddick, who won his only Grand Slam at the 2003 US Open and remains the last American man to claim the title, used his podcast to defend the scheduling. He acknowledged the obvious absurdity of finishing near dawn, but argued the logistics of safely moving 25,000 spectators through Arthur Ashe Stadium leave the tournament with fewer options than critics assume.
The night had already delivered one American story before Shelton's: Frances Tiafoe had won his own five-set quarterfinal against Alex Michelsen, guaranteeing that an American would reach the final — the first such certainty since Roddick's own title run more than two decades ago.
Roddick did not dismiss the fatigue argument. He paraphrased the criticism plainly — five hours is too much — and acknowledged that producers, commentators, and viewers all pay a real cost when matches stretch to dawn. But he resisted the call for shorter formats, arguing that tennis's identity is bound up in its capacity to push competitors to their absolute limit. Take that away, he suggested, and the sport loses something it cannot easily reclaim.
Shelton and Tiafoe will meet Friday at Arthur Ashe Stadium. One of them will reach the final. The debate over late-night tennis will continue, unresolved, in the background.
Ben Shelton's racket found the line at 3:33 a.m., and with it came the biggest win of his career—a five-set tiebreaker over Carlos Alcaraz that made him the first American man to defeat either Alcaraz or Jannik Sinner at a Grand Slam. The match ended in the deep hours of Wednesday morning, the kind of finish that prompts immediate questions about why professional tennis allows its marquee events to stretch so late into the night.
Andy Roddick, who won his only Grand Slam at the 2003 U.S. Open and remains the last American man to claim the title, took to his podcast to defend the scheduling. He acknowledged the obvious complaint—finishing at four in the morning seems absurd on its face—but pushed back on the premise that the tournament had much choice in the matter. "Every match goes to a match tiebreak except for one," he said. "And you've got to get 25,000 people out of a stadium responsibly, and you've got to get 25,000 people in responsibly." The logistics of moving that many spectators in and out of Arthur Ashe Stadium, he suggested, constrain the options more than critics seem to recognize.
Shelton's victory was part of a larger story unfolding at the Open. Frances Tiafoe had won his own five-set quarterfinal against fellow American Alex Michelsen earlier that same evening, which meant that no matter what happened in the men's draw, an American would reach the final. It was a rare moment for the sport in the United States—the first time since 2003 that the country had produced a Grand Slam champion, and now, suddenly, the possibility seemed within reach again.
Roddick conceded the practical point that five hours of tennis tests a viewer's endurance. He even acknowledged that Bill Simmons, the sports podcaster, had made a reasonable case that the format had become unwieldy. "Five hours is too much. I'm bored," Roddick said, paraphrasing the criticism. But he resisted the conclusion that shorter matches were the answer. There was something essential, he argued, about a sport that could demand so much from its competitors—that could stretch them to the absolute limit of their physical and mental capacity. "I kind of like the fact that we have a sport where you get into these long-form matches, and it's the hardest thing on earth," he said. "If you take that away, can we lay that claim anymore? I don't know."
He was not blind to the human cost. He understood that people working behind the scenes—producers, editors, commentators—had to stay awake until dawn to do their jobs. He understood that viewers had to choose between sleep and sport, and that sleep often won. "I understand all of the rational arguments," he said. But he seemed to be arguing that some things worth preserving come with inconvenience attached, and that tennis's identity as the sport that could break a person might be one of them.
Shelton and Tiafoe would meet on Friday at Arthur Ashe Stadium, named for the 1968 champion who remains the last Black American man to win the U.S. Open singles title. One of them would reach the final. The late-night scheduling debate would continue, unresolved, in the background.
Notable Quotes
Every match goes to a match tiebreak except for one. And you've got to get 25,000 people out of a stadium responsibly, and you've got to get 25,000 people in responsibly.— Andy Roddick, defending the late-night scheduling
I kind of like the fact that we have a sport where you get into these long-form matches, and it's the hardest thing on earth. If you take that away, can we lay that claim anymore?— Andy Roddick, on whether shorter formats would diminish tennis's identity
Want the full story?
Read the original at Fox News ↗
Sports