PDA

View Full Version : Why 2 out of 3 sets?


wings56
04-27-2008, 07:22 AM
Why have the masters series tournaments gone to 2 out of 3 sets in the finals? I always enjoyed the battle of 3 out of 5 in the finals.... Anyone else's thoughts?

Klatu Verata Necktie
04-27-2008, 08:02 AM
When word came that the Miami Masters final would be best 2 out of 3 instead of 3 out of 5, there were quite a few season ticket holders who were up in arms. The players and fans seemed to love the epic, long finals.

My guess as to why the finals have been shortened is to accommodate TV time.

Nadal_Freak
04-27-2008, 09:07 AM
It was a great idea. I think the slams should do the same in the early rounds. It is not good for the players health to be extended in such long matches.

shawn1122
04-27-2008, 09:10 AM
I think the slams should stay the way they are, changing the format in early rounds changes the dynamic of the game, losing two sets is much more easier than losing three in some cases. I also enjoyed the five set matches they used to have in masters series finals, but it was too much strain on players so they had to go with three sets, expecially for masters series that are seperated by only a week (like indian wells and miami or monte carlo and rome this year)

Klatu Verata Necktie
04-27-2008, 09:15 AM
I have a hard time believing the change was in order to protect the players' health. Out of 64 players in the draw, only 2 would be affected by a long match in the finals.

Nadal_Freak
04-27-2008, 09:18 AM
I have a hard time believing the change was in order to protect the players' health. Out of 64 players in the draw, only 2 would be affected by a long match in the finals.
Alright correction. Protect the top players of the games health. Also to allow them to play more tournaments.

Tennisfan!
04-27-2008, 10:10 AM
Alright correction. Protect the top players of the games health. Also to allow them to play more tournaments.

Take a look at 70's.
All great event best of 5.
Nobody protects those players, great players.
Today everybody have so many problems to just play and shut the moyh.

Tennisfan!
04-27-2008, 10:11 AM
I want to mean the mouth close:twisted:

wings56
04-27-2008, 12:27 PM
I mean they are professionals, without us paying to watch them, they wouldn't have a living.

janipyt05
04-27-2008, 03:27 PM
Because the player get tired, and i think its best yes for entertainment purposes we would all love best of 5 but after you switch of the tv go get something to eat their in a plane of to play else where. Its only fair to make life easier for player who play so much in a long 11 month season

stormholloway
04-27-2008, 03:49 PM
We're talking a best of 5 set final. It's one match. A 3 setter can only be so great, and rarely "epic".

Leublu tennis
04-28-2008, 01:22 AM
I would sure go with the 5 set final for all the Masters. Is there anything greater than a player coming back from an early 2 set loss? That to me is a great achievement.

spikyblackhair
04-28-2008, 01:29 AM
Yeah, having a best of 5 also reduces the chances for players to "steal" a win, so to speak. With a best of 3, less consistent players should have a better chance.

callitout
04-28-2008, 02:17 AM
Take a look at 70's.
All great event best of 5.
Nobody protects those players, great players.
Today everybody have so many problems to just play and shut the moyh.

Sure and some of the top guys were on nonperformance enhancing drugs; and training off court was very limited.
So what are we to conclude that tenns has changed quite a bit from the 70's I hope. Whether its a better game is a different issue, but its a much more physical game. The strings and racquets benefit players who swing virtually as hard as they can on nearly every shot. The wood racquet era didnt allow that.

coloskier
04-28-2008, 07:20 AM
It was a great idea. I think the slams should do the same in the early rounds. It is not good for the players health to be extended in such long matches.

Especially Nadal.:) All kidding aside, they are Grand Slams because they are as much a marathon as they are a test of skills. It is just as important how fast you beat someone in the earlier rounds. Go long in the early rounds and you are toast later. It keeps you from coasting in the early rounds.

Eviscerator
04-28-2008, 10:03 AM
It was a great idea. I think the slams should do the same in the early rounds. It is not good for the players health to be extended in such long matches.

My goodness, when has tennis become such an effeminate sport? The players of yesteryear not only played the best of 5, but they did not have tiebreakers either so their matches ran much longer. Fitness and mental toughness is part of the game, and best of 5 brings that out more than best of 3.

To the OP, I agree with you and here is a similar thread on this subject where I expressed my dismay.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=190409

edmondsm
04-28-2008, 10:37 AM
It was a great idea. I think the slams should do the same in the early rounds. It is not good for the players health to be extended in such long matches.

NOOOOOOO!!!!! If the players can't hack it then they should start doing some more conditioning. Don't mess with the slams.

joeri888
04-28-2008, 11:32 AM
It was a great idea. I think the slams should do the same in the early rounds. It is not good for the players health to be extended in such long matches.

I agree it's good this way, but don't take the one thing that makes the Slams different away. Slams have to be exhausting. They have to be the climax and you should be out of action for 10 months after playin a slam:)

sacha_v
04-28-2008, 11:49 AM
the phisical effort in the past was much lower then now, and winning in 2 sets is no "stealing"
Also why should players playing finals be disadvantaged for the following week? everyone else has played less matches and best of 2

stormholloway
04-28-2008, 11:50 AM
Sure and some of the top guys were on nonperformance enhancing drugs; and training off court was very limited.
So what are we to conclude that tenns has changed quite a bit from the 70's I hope. Whether its a better game is a different issue, but its a much more physical game. The strings and racquets benefit players who swing virtually as hard as they can on nearly every shot. The wood racquet era didnt allow that.

On clay the rallies were much longer. A 5 setter was a damn long match on clay.

Volly master
04-28-2008, 11:52 AM
They didnt want guys from pulling out of the next weeks events.

Look at Rome//Hamburg for many years.

miniRafa386
04-28-2008, 12:05 PM
They didnt want guys from pulling out of the next weeks events.

Look at Rome//Hamburg for many years.

bingo

nadal/coria rome 05, nadal/federer rome 06, also, think of all the other 5 set matches there were, paris 05, madrid 05, miami 05, and probably more (cant think of any other ones off the top of my head)