Azarenka's counter attack, men should play best of 3?

[Laurie]

Before the US open I wrote an article that its time women play best of 5 sets in grand slam finals, it caused a lot of interesting debate at the time.

Well now, Victoria Azarenka has suggested that men should play best of 3 in grand slam matches, which I think is ridiculous, that's bringing down the level not increasing it. Incredibly, they have found quotes by Roger Federer where he would be partial to the suggestion.

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/tramlines/why-men-play-three-set-matches-grand-slams-141811202.html

This was the article I did in September:

http://www.sportsister.com/2013/08/29/have-your-say-time-for-a-five-set-final-ladies/

 

[Sid_Vicious]

 

[Chico]

Azarenka talks too much. she should concentrate on her game more.

 

[Brian11785]

Agree with Vika (and Billie Jean King) here. The physicality of the game has increased. Five sets of tennis 20 years ago are not the same as five sets now.

I am not going to make any general statements about the watchability of five-setters, but I'll just say that the Nadal/Djokovic marathons do nothing for me. Tennis shouldn't be five hours of men abusing their bodies. Well, it can be whatever it wants to be, but I don't have to pretend to enjoy it.

 

[tennisaddict]

Nadal-Novak and Novak-Murray matches are ruining tennis and no wonder that may set the tone for best of 3 sets.

Do we think if people played style of Federer, Tsonga, Delpo, Berdych and Wawrinka, people will make the same kind of statements ? Absolutely no.

 

[loci]

in effect, what she's saying is that playing best of three in a grand slam would up the ante for the men, who would then have less of an opportunity to work through matches, especially if they can't find their best form right from the first ball. best of five is not necessarily about more work. depending on the vantage point, it could mean players have a buffer; more of an opportunity to secure or squeak out a victory because one's opponent needs to do more over the long haul (as in winning 3 out of 5, no matter how long it takes) for a sustained period of time. the women don't have that luxury. in some sense, they play with an added pressure that the men do not.

 

[Beacon Hill]

"The US Open begun this week and the best players in the world have congregated in North America for the hardcourt swing."

"Women would improve the tactical side of their game, in particular holding serve for longer periods, players would have to raise the bar."

 

[Backspin1183]

Agree with Vika (and Billie Jean King) here. The physicality of the game has increased. Five sets of tennis 20 years ago are not the same as five sets now.

I am not going to make any general statements about the watchability of five-setters, but I'll just say that the Nadal/Djokovic marathons do nothing for me. Tennis shouldn't be five hours of men abusing their bodies. Well, it can be whatever it wants to be, but I don't have to pretend to enjoy it.

Nadal and Djokovic have played Open Era record 37 matches. Only one match lasted over 5 hours! That's right, you're wrong.

 

[Backspin1183]

Azarenka said this in response to a journalist asking her if women should also play best of 5 matches like men do.

Disagree with Vika. Without Best of 5 matches, Nadal would have straight setted Federer at Wimbledon in 2008, no comeback from Fed. It wouldn't have been a classic without Fed fighting back strongly to take the match to 5 sets.

 

[tennis_pro]

Men should play best-of-3? I say Azarenka should shut *** **** **.

 

[ollinger]

The OP's suggestion that 2 out of 3 would bring down the level of men's tennis is a mystery to me. It would force players to play their best right away, with less opportunity to waste a set. That can only improve the level of play.

 

[Egoista]

what did redfoo do to her

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

The best of three match format is actually TOUGHER because you've got to be ready right away from the start of the match. The men play best of three most of the year anyway.

 

[Laurie]

The OP's suggestion that 2 out of 3 would bring down the level of men's tennis is a mystery to me. It would force players to play their best right away, with less opportunity to waste a set. That can only improve the level of play.

I think it will be the opposite, the beauty of 5 set tennis is its give the chance for someone to come back, three sets would eliminate that opportunity and turn the match into more of a quick shoot out. Mens tennis is all about great comebacks. Lendl coming from two sets down to beat McEnroe in the 1984 French Open final, Agassi cominng from two sets down to beat Medvedev in the 1999 French final. Sampras coming from two sets down to beat Courier at both the Australian and French in 1995 and 1996. And Djokovic coming from two sets down to beat Federer in 2011 US Open; there are many other examples. Mens tennis is not womens tennis.

 

[Laurie]

"The US Open begun this week and the best players in the world have congregated in North America for the hardcourt swing."

"Women would improve the tactical side of their game, in particular holding serve for longer periods, players would have to raise the bar."

I should clarify the first sentence, the editor changed my first sentence, I submitted it before the US open but it was published during the US Open.

On the 2nd statement, why not? When I watch some of the matches from players like Lindsay Davenport, Mary Pierce, Steffi Graf, Henin and a few others from that period, I am impressed in their ability to hold serve on a consistent basis, not breaks virtually every other game which can happen so often especially in the last few years. I could never understand why current players wont practice their serves more, if they were to play best of 5 they would have to improve their serve.

 

[bullfan]

Then what would make it a grand slam? If it was best of 3, there would be nothing grand about it.

 

[Backspin1183]

If more female players feel like Azarenka then I hope they seperate the men's and women's slams. Don't let it be a combined tourney. Then let's see how many turn up for the women's matches.

 

[Crisstti]

I think it will be the opposite, the beauty of 5 set tennis is its give the chance for someone to come back, three sets would eliminate that opportunity and turn the match into more of a quick shoot out. Mens tennis is all about great comebacks. Lendl coming from two sets down to beat McEnroe in the 1984 French Open final, Agassi cominng from two sets down to beat Medvedev in the 1999 French final. Sampras coming from two sets down to beat Courier at both the Australian and French in 1995 and 1996. And Djokovic coming from two sets down to beat Federer in 2011 US Open; there are many other examples. Mens tennis is not womens tennis.

Exactly. Great comebacks make for epic matches, and there should an epic element to what are supposed to be the biggest tournaments in tennis.

Reminds me of when football eliminated the 3 minutes extra time in case of a tie in regular time, and replaced it with the golden goal, whoever scored first won. It took away the possibility of great comebacks on this additional time, which are spectacular. Think of two of the most memorable matches in World Cup history: Germany vs. Italy in 1970 and France vs. Germany in 1982.
It was quickly reverted back. Teams would just play just tentative football, mainly trying to avoid a goal instead of trying to score one.

Not to mention, if you play best of three but with a day of rest, it's actually easier than winning a masters.

 

[Crisstti]

I have to wonder if Vika was even serious. Thing is, many male players complain that women can make a lot more money on grans slams because they can play both the singles and the doubles, which is obviously much harder when you play best of 5. This would seem an answer to that particular complaint.

 

[Who Am I?]

Azarenka should keep quiet and instead try to improve her serve. She ain't getting the better of Serena with that serve.

If the men were playing 3 instead of 5 sets, the likes of Federer, Sampras, Agassi, Novak would have won less slams, so how about a big fat NO Vika.

 

[newpball]

Well now, Victoria Azarenka has suggested that men should play best of 3 in grand slam matches, which I think is ridiculous, that's bringing down the level not increasing it.

Why would playing more sets bring the level up? I think it drags the level down, players get too tired and their accuracy and speed starts to suffer.

Pretty much the whole world from juniors, amateurs and pros plays best of 3.

I think there is something to say for having everyone play a best of three with a tie-break at 8 in the third.

 

[henman_fan]

I agree with her. With the length of the rallies now, three set matches seems fair on the players and the viewers. Maybe four and a tie break would work.

 

[Crisstti]

Uhm, the USO final wasn't that long. Not even 4 hours I think.

Anyway, people who lack the attention span can stick to the masters, 500 and 250s, and skip the majors

 

[Overdrive]

I agree with her. With the length of the rallies now, three set matches seems fair on the players and the viewers. Maybe four and a tie break would work.

No.

10 characters

 

[bullfan]

Azarenka was at wtf for women and not happy to be there. She had back issues and was burnt out.

 

[CCNM]

Maybe playing only three sets would cut down the number of injuries?

 

[Wim]

Absolutely not agree with her. I love long matches!
The best matches is history are slam matches.

 

[Mainad]

Grand Slams would lose their special status if the guys moved to best of 3 like the women. What would then differentiate them from, say, a Masters tournament? Federer pointed out that, if this happened, there probably would be no justification for extending them to 2 weeks! Personally, I can't imagine Wimbledon or the US Open disappearing from our TV screens after 1 lousy week!

I suspect Azarenka is panicking a little at the thought of the women having to play best of 5 like the men to justify their equal pay. It sounds like she's trying to turn the argument on it's head and bring the men down to the level of the women. How on earth can best of 3 matches be as exciting and dramatic as the many epic best of 5 encounters we have all witnessed and seen over the years?

Keep the Grand Slam tournaments special and preserve the best of 5 format. In fact, all the lesser tournaments should re-introduce best of 5 for at least the finals and that includes the women too!

 

[bullfan]

Grand Slams would lose their special status if the guys moved to best of 3 like the women. What would then differentiate them from, say, a Masters tournament? Federer pointed out that, if this happened, there probably would be no justification for extending them to 2 weeks! Personally, I can't imagine Wimbledon or the US Open disappearing from our TV screens after 1 lousy week!

I suspect Azarenka is panicking a little at the thought of the women having to play best of 5 like the men to justify their equal pay. It sounds like she's trying to turn the argument on it's head and bring the men down to the level of the women. How on earth can best of 3 matches be as exciting and dramatic as the many epic best of 5 encounters we have all witnessed and seen over the years?

Keep the Grand Slam tournaments special and preserve the best of 5 format. In fact, all the lesser tournaments should re-introduce best of 5 for at least the finals and that includes the women too!

Quite frankly, I think she was in a ****y mood. She didn't want to play in Wta finals, but due to possible bad PR did. Not really feeling to bad for the retirement queen, who's played chicken little one too many times. I'm sorry her back is bad, but she put her self in a bad position.

 

[Maximagq]

Nadal-Djokovic and Djokovic-Murray matchups are the two greatest rivalries of all time. Deal with it.

 

[Beacon Hill]

I should clarify the first sentence, the editor changed my first sentence, I submitted it before the US open but it was published during the US Open.

On the 2nd statement, why not? When I watch some of the matches from players like Lindsay Davenport, Mary Pierce, Steffi Graf, Henin and a few others from that period, I am impressed in their ability to hold serve on a consistent basis, not breaks virtually every other game which can happen so often especially in the last few years. I could never understand why current players wont practice their serves more, if they were to play best of 5 they would have to improve their serve.

Thanks. I quoted these as a comment on the standard of writing. If you want your online magazine to be treated as a legitimate publication rather than a blog or forum posting, the writing and editing needs to meet professional standards. Good luck!

 

[Crisstti]

Grand Slams would lose their special status if the guys moved to best of 3 like the women. What would then differentiate them from, say, a Masters tournament? Federer pointed out that, if this happened, there probably would be no justification for extending them to 2 weeks! Personally, I can't imagine Wimbledon or the US Open disappearing from our TV screens after 1 lousy week!

I suspect Azarenka is panicking a little at the thought of the women having to play best of 5 like the men to justify their equal pay. It sounds like she's trying to turn the argument on it's head and bring the men down to the level of the women. How on earth can best of 3 matches be as exciting and dramatic as the many epic best of 5 encounters we have all witnessed and seen over the years?

Keep the Grand Slam tournaments special and preserve the best of 5 format. In fact, all the lesser tournaments should re-introduce best of 5 for at least the finals and that includes the women too!

Great post, agree.

 

[lethalfang]

Maybe playing only three sets would cut down the number of injuries?

And playing a single set will cut down the number of injuries even more.

 

[v-verb]

I think it will be the opposite, the beauty of 5 set tennis is its give the chance for someone to come back, three sets would eliminate that opportunity and turn the match into more of a quick shoot out. Mens tennis is all about great comebacks. Lendl coming from two sets down to beat McEnroe in the 1984 French Open final, Agassi cominng from two sets down to beat Medvedev in the 1999 French final. Sampras coming from two sets down to beat Courier at both the Australian and French in 1995 and 1996. And Djokovic coming from two sets down to beat Federer in 2011 US Open; there are many other examples. Mens tennis is not womens tennis.

Laurie I totally agree with you. I think your reasoning is sound.

In addition, I think having the women play best of 5 at the Slams would raise the profile and increase respect for women's tennis

 

[Backspin1183]

And playing a single set will cut down the number of injuries even more.

Good point. I hope in the future we can have one set matches over 2 weeks in grand slams.

 

[Nostradamus]

Before the US open I wrote an article that its time women play best of 5 sets in grand slam finals, it caused a lot of interesting debate at the time.

Well now, Victoria Azarenka has suggested that men should play best of 3 in grand slam matches, which I think is ridiculous, that's bringing down the level not increasing it. Incredibly, they have found quotes by Roger Federer where he would be partial to the suggestion.

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/tramlines/why-men-play-three-set-matches-grand-slams-141811202.html

This was the article I did in September:

http://www.sportsister.com/2013/08/29/have-your-say-time-for-a-five-set-final-ladies/

To be fair, if women has to play best of 5 in year ending final, then they should play best of 5 in all of the Majors final too. This way they will get used to doing this.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Azarenka suggesting men should play best of 3 rather than women best of 5? What a surprise. She happens to be one of the joke fitness WTA plater who'd need an oxygen mask and a stretcher in a match that goes beyond 4th set. Disgusting attitude. Never really liked her. Screamer/grinder/cheater and generally annoying as hell

 

[andymaratkimi]

They should bring best of 5 back in Master 1000 final

 

[Brian11785]

Nadal and Djokovic have played Open Era record 37 matches. Only one match lasted over 5 hours! That's right, you're wrong.

No, you took my general statement/hyperbole literally. Do you think that I only think their matches are tedious if they're over 5 hours? If they somehow fall under that time, they're no longer grueling and unenjoyable? Or that my statement only applied to Djokovic/Nadal? (They're currently the worst matchup to watch, but if people developing young talent sees these two and assume their strengths are what it takes to win at the highest level--fitness and endurance--in five years, these kinds of matches will be the norm.

I am not wrong. My opinion is my opinion (and it is a common one). Another opinion: people who cherry-pick posts to dismiss others need to stop.

 

[Crose]

Why would playing more sets bring the level up? I think it drags the level down, players get too tired and their accuracy and speed starts to suffer.

Pretty much the whole world from juniors, amateurs and pros plays best of 3.

I think there is something to say for having everyone play a best of three with a tie-break at 8 in the third.

Because a best of 5 triggers a gear for great players that 3 sets just can't. We've seen tons of matches throughout history where the 4th and 5th sets were of absurd quality. Like Djokovic against Fed in USO11, when he just flipped the switch in the 5th with that return. Like this year's RG semi when Nadal became a man possessed in the 5th set..the players these days are conditioned so well that they're capable of doing things like that. Of course now and then you'll get a 5-set stinker of a match, but I think matches even just in recent memory like Wimby 08 final, Wimby 09 final, AO09 semi AND final, AO12 final, etc. compensate for the less than stellar ones.

 

[Crisstti]

Because a best of 5 triggers a gear for great players that 3 sets just can't. We've seen tons of matches throughout history where the 4th and 5th sets were of absurd quality. Like Djokovic against Fed in USO11, when he just flipped the switch in the 5th with that return. Like this year's RG semi when Nadal became a man possessed in the 5th set..the players these days are conditioned so well that they're capable of doing things like that. Of course now and then you'll get a 5-set stinker of a match, but I think matches even just in recent memory like Wimby 08 final, Wimby 09 final, AO09 semi AND final, AO12 final, etc. compensate for the less than stellar ones.

It would just be an enormous loss for the sport if they ever did away with the best of 5 format.

The only ones to benefit would be mediocre players who'd get more of a chance at an upset.