Why has the Sony Ericsson gone to 3 sets instead of 5?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Vector, Apr 6, 2008.

  1. Vector

    Vector Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    125
    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!
     
    #1
  2. tenis

    tenis Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    848
    That's why Indian Wells is the "fifth".
     
    #2
  3. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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.
     
    #3
  4. mary fierce

    mary fierce Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    734
    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.
     
    #4
  5. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    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.
     
    #5
  6. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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.
     
    #6
  7. leonidas1982

    leonidas1982 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,615
    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.
     
    #7
  8. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida

    :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.
     
    #8
  9. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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. :)
     
    #9
  10. leonidas1982

    leonidas1982 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,615
    ^^ 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.
     
    #10
  11. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    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.
     
    #11
  12. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2008
    #12
  13. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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.
     
    #13
  14. robin7

    robin7 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,155
    Come on, we already have 4 Grand Slams playing the best of 5. Playing the best of 3 at Master Series is acceptable.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2008
    #14
  15. Lendl

    Lendl Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    519
    All men's should be best of 5 in my opinion. At least the Masters Series.
     
    #15
  16. rafa_prestige89

    rafa_prestige89 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    200
    Because of CBS that broadcasted the final...
     
    #16
  17. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    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.

    `
     
    #17
  18. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    because the good players have to play too much as it is. see this recent article:
    Nadal nags ATP about schedule

    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."
     
    #18
  19. laurie

    laurie Guest

    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.
     
    #19
  20. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    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.
     
    #20
  21. Mansewerz

    Mansewerz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,164
    Location:
    Caught in No Man's Land
    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!
     
    #21
  22. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,445
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    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).
     
    #22
  23. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    What's been changed at Wimbledon?

    Your memory is far better than mine. I thought Miami had been best of five forever. :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2008
    #23
  24. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    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.
     
    #24
  25. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,681
    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?
     
    #25
  26. laurie

    laurie Guest

    Hi Fee, Miami was also best of 3 in 1994. I have that final up on youtube.
     
    #26
  27. diggler

    diggler Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,174
    Location:
    Sydney
    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.
     
    #27
  28. laurie

    laurie Guest

    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.
     
    #28
  29. jgreen06

    jgreen06 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    125
    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.
     
    #29
  30. Fee

    Fee Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,308
    Location:
    In front of my computer, obviously
    Thanks. I wasn't really watching tennis back then, I missed a chunk of years in the 90's. :)
     
    #30

Share This Page