3:34am finish reignites calls for curfew as players, pundits debate shorter matches.

The US Open’s increasingly punishing late-night schedule has come under renewed scrutiny after Ben Shelton’s marathon quarter-final against Carlos Alcaraz ended at 3:34am on Wednesday, setting the latest finish in the tournament’s 145-year history.

The 4hr 28min battle, which saw Shelton eventually defeat Alcaraz, did not begin until after 11:00pm on Tuesday, once again exposing the difficulties created by the tournament’s traditional night-session format.

The extraordinary finish has intensified a debate that has been building throughout this year’s tournament, with former champions, players and commentators questioning whether matches should continue deep into the early hours or whether organisers need to introduce tougher scheduling restrictions.

Late finishes are hardly a new feature of the US Open, where the atmosphere under the lights at Flushing Meadows is regarded as one of the tournament’s defining attractions.

But this year, the problem has appeared particularly acute.

There have already been four matches that finished after 2:00am, while several other sessions have extended beyond 1:00am.

The previous record for the latest finish came in 2022, when Alcaraz himself battled Jannik Sinner until 2:50am.

This time, however, the Spaniard was on the receiving end of another late-night marathon, with Shelton finally securing victory in the early hours of Wednesday.

Navratilova: ‘Something has got to give’

The scheduling has prompted concern from some of the biggest names in tennis.

American tennis great Martina Navratilova, commenting on the issue on X, said the situation had reached an unacceptable point.

“Something has got to give,” Navratilova wrote. “This is not ok and it is not normal.”

Navratilova has previously argued that the US Open should reconsider how it structures its evening sessions.

The tournament currently typically schedules both a men’s and women’s singles match on Arthur Ashe Stadium during the prime-time night session.

While the format allows organisers to maximise the value of the stadium’s headline evening sessions, it creates a significant scheduling risk when the opening match becomes a lengthy contest.

A three-set women’s match or a five-set men’s battle can push the second match deep into the night, leaving players with little certainty over when they will take the court.

“I think they need to fix the night session. It’s too late,” said Navratilova. “I think they should play men’s singles and then maybe a doubles match.

“If you do women’s singles you can still have another doubles match, or another women’s singles. You’ll still get four sets of play minimum.

“Even if you put the women’s match on first and it’s three sets, the guys start by 10pm. If a men’s match goes five sets, you start at midnight.

“You’re never on the court at midnight and you never start a match at midnight, so it’s counterproductive for everybody, spectators and the players.”

Henman calls for ‘protected’ start times

Former British tennis star Tim Henman, who is working at the tournament as an analyst for Sky Sports, believes the challenge is finding a balance between player welfare and the commercial importance of the US Open’s night sessions.

The evening atmosphere at Arthur Ashe Stadium is a major part of the tournament’s identity, while the night sessions are also an important source of revenue for organisers.

“It’s hard. It is not ideal as a professional athlete when you’re playing at that time, but if you look at it from a tournament’s point of view, it’s a massive part of their business model to have those two sessions, to sell, you know, tickets here on Ashe,” Henman reflected.

Rather than abolishing night sessions altogether, Henman proposed giving matches a form of scheduling protection.

“So, for me, we need night sessions, they’re iconic for this event. But also, I think there should be sort of almost protected start times.”

Under his proposal, a second singles match would be moved to another court if the opening match had not started by a predetermined deadline.

“If you have a women’s match first, and if the men’s match hasn’t gone on by 9:30, or 10 o’clock, then vice versa, if the men’s match goes first, if that is going to be a long four, five-setter, then perhaps the women’s match moves elsewhere,” Henman added.

Such a system could preserve the commercial appeal of the night session while reducing the likelihood of players being required to begin matches around midnight.

Calls grow for shorter matches

While scheduling reforms have emerged as one possible solution, some commentators have proposed a much more radical answer: shortening tennis matches themselves.

American sports podcaster Bill Simmons argued that the traditional format can produce matches that are simply too long for the modern sporting environment.

“I’ve watched tennis my whole life. I’ve played tennis; I love tennis. Tennis matches are too long,” Simmons said.

“All the tennis purists are going to be like, ‘That’s crazy’…But I think they should seriously think about changing the sets from six (games) to five to win the set.”

The debate comes as Grand Slam organisers continue to consider how the traditional five-set men's format fits into the demands of the modern professional game.

Andrew Abdo, chief executive of the organisation responsible for the Australian Open, has previously suggested that Grand Slam tournaments could eventually consider using best-of-three-set matches for men in the early rounds.

Such a change would represent a major departure from one of the defining traditions of men's Grand Slam tennis.

Tiafoe defends five-set tradition

Not everyone is convinced that shorter matches are the answer.

US Open semi-finalist Frances Tiafoe remains firmly in favour of retaining five-set matches despite acknowledging the physical demands they impose on players.

“Do I love five-setters? Absolutely not,” Tiafoe said. “But it’s tennis, man.”

“I grew up watching so many incredible five-setters. Novak-Rafa, Federer-Rafa, epic five-setters that go on for hours and hours. That’s the history of the game.”

His position reflects the broader tension at the heart of the scheduling debate.

Long matches are part of what gives Grand Slam tennis its drama, producing comebacks, physical battles and defining moments that can stretch across several hours.

Yet those same matches can create serious knock-on effects when they are scheduled as the opening contest of a night session.

For players, particularly those competing in the later rounds, starting a match after 11:00pm can disrupt preparation, recovery and sleep schedules. A match that finishes in the early hours can also leave the winner with limited recovery time before the next round.

A growing problem for Grand Slam tennis

The Shelton-Alcaraz contest has therefore become more than another memorable late-night US Open encounter.

It has become the latest flashpoint in a wider discussion about how Grand Slam tennis should balance tradition, entertainment, commercial interests and player welfare.

The US Open’s night sessions remain among the most recognisable spectacles in tennis, with packed crowds and an atmosphere that is difficult to replicate during daytime play.

But as matches increasingly stretch beyond midnight, organisers face growing pressure to ensure that the spectacle does not come at the expense of the athletes producing it.

Whether that means introducing a curfew, protecting match start times, moving delayed matches to other courts or eventually shortening matches, the debate is unlikely to disappear.

For now, the record-breaking 3:34am finish has added another compelling argument that something may need to change at Flushing Meadows.