PDA

View Full Version : Why has the Sony Ericsson gone to 3 sets instead of 5?


Vector
04-06-2008, 10:21 AM
It helped distinguish it from other Master series events and played into the notion of it being the 5th grand slam. Reducing it to best of three makes no sense.

Why must they always look to change things. If it aint broke dont fix it!

tenis
04-06-2008, 11:04 AM
That's why Indian Wells is the "fifth".

Fee
04-06-2008, 11:21 AM
That's why Indian Wells is the "fifth".

No, it isn't. And IW was best of 3 as well.

ALL of the Masters finals except the year end are now best of three. This was put into place last year, but Miami was given a one time exemption.

mary fierce
04-06-2008, 11:37 AM
TV networks prefer predictability of time. Best of 5 can go 3,4, or 5, best of 3 goes 2 or 3 -- more predictable scheduling for TV.

Eviscerator
04-06-2008, 12:19 PM
I agree that is still should be the best of 5. I was in the stands when I witnessed a great comeback in 2005 as Federer was down two sets to none and won the Miami series. The better player wins the 5 setters most of the time. Why the tennis establishment allows television executives to dictate how the sport is played is beyond me.

Fee
04-06-2008, 12:22 PM
Money... it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bull shi... :)


Actually, I think it was a combination of the TV networks complaining, and the belief that 5 set finals were wearing out the players, especially in the case of the Hamburg-Rome finals. If I remember correctly, the players seemed to be evenly split on this issue when it was proposed in 2006.

leonidas1982
04-06-2008, 12:26 PM
In all sports, the sporting authorities prefer their own financial well being over that of the sport. Same reason why the Premier League sold future tv rights to ESPN, even though ESPN is notorious for not showing adequate matches. Kudos to the French for giving rights to the Tennis Chan.

Eviscerator
04-06-2008, 12:34 PM
Money... it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bull shi... :)


Actually, I think it was a combination of the TV networks complaining, and the belief that 5 set finals were wearing out the players, especially in the case of the Hamburg-Rome finals. If I remember correctly, the players seemed to be evenly split on this issue when it was proposed in 2006.


:roll:

Having a few tournaments go 5 sets in the finals should not "wear out the players". It was not all that long ago that many more tourneys were best of 5 and there was no such thing as a tiebreaker. If the greats of the past could endure 5 setters with scores like 22-20, 16-18, 6-4, 11-13, 17-15 then today's players should be able to keep from wearing out.

Fee
04-06-2008, 12:43 PM
:roll:

Having a few tournaments go 5 sets in the finals should not "wear out the players". It was not all that long ago that many more tourneys were best of 5 and there was no such thing as a tiebreaker. If the greats of the past could endure 5 setters with scores like 22-20, 16-18, 6-4, 11-13, 17-15 then today's players should be able to keep from wearing out.

Well yeah, but the season is much longer now isn't it? And the men's game is more powerful and grueling. Who knows... I just remember that time when Fed and Nadal played a brutal five setter and then withdrew from the next event, was that Hamburg/Rome in 2006, and everyone was up in arms about it. I think that is where the movement began to dump the five set finals in Masters events, and it might have been helped along by assorted broadcasters, not just the ones in the US.


Leonidas, Roland Garros will be shared by ESPN/TTC/NBC. It was a rights sharing deal bought and paid for by all 3 parties. :)

leonidas1982
04-06-2008, 12:58 PM
Well yeah, but the season is much longer now isn't it? And the men's game is more powerful and grueling. Who knows... I just remember that time when Fed and Nadal played a brutal five setter and then withdrew from the next event, was that Hamburg/Rome in 2006, and everyone was up in arms about it. I think that is where the movement began to dump the five set finals in Masters events, and it might have been helped along by assorted broadcasters, not just the ones in the US.


Leonidas, Roland Garros will be shared by ESPN/TTC/NBC. It was a rights sharing deal bought and paid for by all 3 parties. :)

^^ Yep. I believe ESPN's rights lasts until 2011. After that hopefully it won't be renewed. Sharing rights, nevertheless, is much better than ESPN solely.

Eviscerator
04-06-2008, 01:09 PM
I just remember that time when Fed and Nadal played a brutal five setter and then withdrew from the next event, was that Hamburg/Rome in 2006, and everyone was up in arms about it.



So by that thinking it would have been better for those who complained to have Nadal win in 2 straight sets, rather than the fans seeing a great 5 set comeback with Federer winning?

I am not naive enough to believe that money/television will not have a say or influence, but the tennis powers that be must stand up for the sport rather than doing what is best for the money grubbers. The fans all to often wind up the loser when that happens.

AlpineCadet
04-06-2008, 01:11 PM
It might be less entertaining at first when you don't get to see the players lay it all out for us in the 5 sets, but I'd rather see them in more events. For me, the 3 set max is def. more exciting to watch because it forces the players to focus and give very little away.

Fee
04-06-2008, 01:13 PM
So by that thinking it would have been better for those who complained to have Nadal win in 2 straight sets, rather than the fans seeing a great 5 set comeback with Federer winning?

I am not naive enough to believe that money/television will not have a say or influence, but the tennis powers that be must stand up for the sport rather than doing what is best for the money grubbers. The fans all to often wind up the loser when that happens.

I agree, but most of what DeVilliers has done during his 'reign' hasn't been about the fans, or even the players. He mostly seems to give in to the will of the most powerful tournament directors, and he lets money be his guide, in my opinion.

But the fans exchanged that great five set final for not having either one of them play the next week right? (I have to admit my memory of the exact events is quite foggy). So some fans won and some fans lost in that situation, and what do you do? What do you say to the players who don't support 5 set finals in Masters events? It's definitely not an easy situation at all.

robin7
04-06-2008, 01:22 PM
Come on, we already have 4 Grand Slams playing the best of 5. Playing the best of 3 at Master Series is acceptable.

Lendl
04-06-2008, 02:22 PM
All men's should be best of 5 in my opinion. At least the Masters Series.

rafa_prestige89
04-06-2008, 02:30 PM
Because of CBS that broadcasted the final...

Eviscerator
04-06-2008, 02:36 PM
I agree, but most of what DeVilliers has done during his 'reign' hasn't been about the fans, or even the players. He mostly seems to give in to the will of the most powerful tournament directors, and he lets money be his guide, in my opinion.

If that is true, then a grass roots movement should be afoot to replace him. The ATP was around before him, and hopefully will survive his reign until a better replacement can be found.

But the fans exchanged that great five set final for not having either one of them play the next week right? (I have to admit my memory of the exact events is quite foggy). So some fans won and some fans lost in that situation, and what do you do? What do you say to the players who don't support 5 set finals in Masters events? It's definitely not an easy situation at all.

I agree that there are no easy answers when it comes to what the players want if they are divided. My feeling would be to have it stay the same unless and until a clear majority of players ask for change.

Also I was going by your recollection on the next tourney drop outs after the Miami 5 set match. Could you be mistaken either with when the drop outs occurred or for that matter the reason they dropped out?
All I can say is that Federer was the better player that year as evidenced by his #1 status, yet he would have lost that match had it been the best of 3 instead of 5. As a tennis fan, when I pay money to see a match, I want as much tennis as possible. I would have been disappointed with today's straight set stinker. Had it been 5 sets, who knows, maybe a fighter like Nadal would have made the same type of comeback.

`

TheNatural
04-06-2008, 03:08 PM
because the good players have to play too much as it is. see this recent article:
Nadal nags ATP about schedule (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/showsports.aspx?id=SPOEN20080046000&ch=4/5/2008%205:28:00%20PM)

Saturday, April 5, 2008 (Miami)
Rafael Nadal goes into the final of the Miami Masters wishing he were someplace else.

The Spanish world No.2 complained on Friday after beating Tomas Berdych for his spot in the title match that the annual March marathon of two US events is a touch too much for European players.

"I'm very comfortable in United States, but not this time," said the Spaniard, who is annoyed by back-to-back Masters events in Indian Wells and Miami which take nearly four full weeks to complete.

"It's not fair to have one month, two tournaments, and after go back to Europe and we have to play three Masters Series on clay."

Nadal has the added stress of reporting immediately to Bremen upon arrival Tuesday for Davis Cup duty as Spain face Germany in a quarter-final starting Friday.

The three-time French Open winner will than have only a week of rest before plunging into the defence of his Monte Carlo title on his favoured surface.

"We only have three Masters Series (Monte Carlo, Rome and Hamburg) during all the season, and we have three in four weeks. For us it's terrible.

"And three Masters Series in the middle of the biggest tournament on clay in the world: Barcelona. So if you see the calendar, that is unbelievable."

Nadal said that the problem of tight scheduling cannot all be laid at the door of the Beijing Olympics in August. But he did blame the American college basketball playoffs also held in March for crowding the tennis schedule.

"I know here it's very important, the college basketball, because I saw always the American players and the men in the locker room watching always this," he said"

"But, we can't have the (ATP) thinking about the college basketball, no? So we are 100 per cent disappointed about this (scheduling) decision of the ATP.

"European players are very angry about these decisions. For me it's terrible," he said. "I'm a clay player, but I can play very well on all surface. But playing four weeks it's impossible if you are playing well."

Nadal was joined in his criticism by Berdych.

"It's really too long to stay here in the States," he said of the hardcourt grind.

"For these two tournaments, it's really long. Maybe not the right way, but it's all right. I have to just get more ready for it."

laurie
04-06-2008, 03:30 PM
Well I remember when they used to alternate didn't they? So Indian Wells would be best of 5 and Miami best of 3, then the next year Indian Wells would be best of 3 and Miami best of 5, and so on, that was good.

I'm very disappointed that these finals are now best of 3. All those great finals of the past 15 years in Miami, Indian Wells, Rome, Monte Carlo are gone for the time being.

Just one of the rubbish decisions the ATP has taken over the last 12 months - I don't buy that wearing out players argument either.

Fee
04-06-2008, 04:54 PM
If that is true, then a grass roots movement should be afoot to replace him. The ATP was around before him, and hopefully will survive his reign until a better replacement can be found.



I agree that there are no easy answers when it comes to what the players want if they are divided. My feeling would be to have it stay the same unless and until a clear majority of players ask for change.

Also I was going by your recollection on the next tourney drop outs after the Miami 5 set match. Could you be mistaken either with when the drop outs occurred or for that matter the reason they dropped out?
All I can say is that Federer was the better player that year as evidenced by his #1 status, yet he would have lost that match had it been the best of 3 instead of 5. As a tennis fan, when I pay money to see a match, I want as much tennis as possible. I would have been disappointed with today's straight set stinker. Had it been 5 sets, who knows, maybe a fighter like Nadal would have made the same type of comeback.

`

Miami is usually followed by a DC week or by optional tournaments, so drop outs after Miami was never the issue. The drop out issue came in to play mostly because of the Hamburg/Rome double, and occasionally because of the Canada/Cincy and Madrid/Paris double. Federer and Nadal played a five set final in Rome in 2006, then both dropped out of Hamburg the following week, so that was when it happened (I finally looked it up).


Laurie, Miami and IW did not alternate. Miami has been best of five for years. IW seemed to change it's mind about it until finally the ATP said 'no more.' This is the first year that Miami was forced to drop it's five set final.

Mansewerz
04-06-2008, 05:05 PM
Because they want to emphasize the importance of TMC?

Also, while we're at it, Wimbledon should never have been changed. LIke the OP said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

vive le beau jeu !
04-06-2008, 05:08 PM
Miami is usually followed by a DC week or by optional tournaments, so drop outs after Miami was never the issue. The drop out issue came in to play mostly because of the Hamburg/Rome double, and occasionally because of the Canada/Cincy and Madrid/Paris double. Federer and Nadal played a five set final in Rome in 2006, then both dropped out of Hamburg the following week, so that was when it happened (I finally looked it up).


Laurie, Miami and IW did not alternate. Miami has been best of five for years. IW seemed to change it's mind about it until finally the ATP said 'no more.' This is the first year that Miami was forced to drop it's five set final.
well... the 1st year since 2003 !
and they also had a best of 3 final between 1991 and 1995 (but i guess it was because of the TV stuff).

Fee
04-06-2008, 05:36 PM
Because they want to emphasize the importance of TMC?

Also, while we're at it, Wimbledon should never have been changed. LIke the OP said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

What's been changed at Wimbledon?

well... the 1st year since 2003 !
and they also had a best of 3 final between 1991 and 1995 (but i guess it was because of the TV stuff).

Your memory is far better than mine. I thought Miami had been best of five forever. :)

Eviscerator
04-06-2008, 07:19 PM
The Miami event has been best of 5 for the majority of the years. It started out that way, and only had a few years where it wasn't. I think it had to do with local politics(not sure though), not the direction of the tennis powers.

Rob_C
04-06-2008, 08:58 PM
What does March Madness have to do with the tennis schedule??? Just because the players watch it in the locker room doesnt mean that the ATP fcators that in its decisions.

What Nadal isnt considering is the draw sizes for IW and Miami. The reason both of those tourneys strectching over two weeks is b/c of the draw sizes, plus they are combined events with the WTA.

Obviously the TDs want as many people as possible thru their gates, and they want to have as many sessions as possible to increase ticket revenue.

Isnt part of the reason the ATP wanted to drop one of the clay court masters was so they could combine one of them to an ATP/WTA event, like Miami or IW?

laurie
04-07-2008, 05:22 AM
well... the 1st year since 2003 !
and they also had a best of 3 final between 1991 and 1995 (but i guess it was because of the TV stuff).

Hi Fee, Miami was also best of 3 in 1994. I have that final up on youtube.

diggler
04-07-2008, 05:53 AM
I agree that television runs sport, but would they prefer best of 3 or best of 5. I don't know who is broadcasting over there but if it is a free to air station, don't you want more content to run more advertisements?

I understand you don't want the event to run too long to interrupt football coverage or whatever else is really popular.

Yesterday the network got 1 hour 15 of content for probably a lot of money. Wouldn't a network want more bang for their buck?

How about this for a stupid idea. Best of 5, but at 2 sets all, it is a match tie break. It is guaranteed 3 to 4 and a bit sets. 2 to 3 hours.

laurie
04-07-2008, 07:50 AM
I agree that television runs sport, but would they prefer best of 3 or best of 5. I don't know who is broadcasting over there but if it is a free to air station, don't you want more content to run more advertisements?

I understand you don't want the event to run too long to interrupt football coverage or whatever else is really popular.

Yesterday the network got 1 hour 15 of content for probably a lot of money. Wouldn't a network want more bang for their buck?

How about this for a stupid idea. Best of 5, but at 2 sets all, it is a match tie break. It is guaranteed 3 to 4 and a bit sets. 2 to 3 hours.

As they used to say on Sesame Street - it's a crazy idea that just might work! You are sure to have a climax for the crowd and television viewers with a champions tiebreak to decide who takes the trophy.

jgreen06
04-07-2008, 10:45 AM
As TheNatural said, i think first and foremost this has to do with scheduling. tv ratings and ticket sales problems are a byproduct of scheduling. IW and miami are back to back, MC, Rome and hamburg are all pretty much back to back. Thats tough to play a huge 5 setter and turn around and play another whole tournament that next week. see 2006 Rome final - Nadal beats fed in 5 close ones and they both withdraw from Hamburg. No one wants to see that, bad for ticket sales and tv ratings.

Fee
04-07-2008, 11:04 AM
Hi Fee, Miami was also best of 3 in 1994. I have that final up on youtube.

Thanks. I wasn't really watching tennis back then, I missed a chunk of years in the 90's. :)