joshuadearing
Rookie
As I watch the Women's finals I realize how one bad stretch end of first and beginning of 2nd and its over; no real drama or struggle in three sets most of the time.
plus, trying to fool the mother nature is a stupid idea, i agreeYes, Bo3 at Slams would ruin men's tennis.
It should just stay the way it is now.there are variants possible, bo3 with 8-9 games or bo5 with 5 games, though i prefer prolonging bo3
^
blah, there's an incentive to make the sport more popular
^
blah, there's an incentive to make the sport more popular
how?Changing the scoring system is such a lazy marketing exercise. Pitiful, really.
I agree that grand slams should retain best of 5 set matches for the men all the way through the draw. However unfortunately I think it is inevitable that there will be some movement on this at some point in the future.
I think we'll probably first see the US Open bringing in the best of 3 set matches in the first 3-4 rounds (which was the case from 1975-1978), and keeping best of 5 sets for the latter stages, and that things will snowball from there.
female grandslams should also be 5 sets.
it's the "hardest" event there is. if you can't handle 5 sets then stick to the other tournaments.
it's also why girls like serena/osaka can get away being somewhat fat/chubby because your stamina/fitness is not truely tested.
Yeah which I'm probably gonna get blasted for in another thread. How can you look like a weekend warrior and win slams; the answer is WTA.
I agree that slam finals at the very least should be BO5 on the women's side, but if you're dig is at Osaka (looking like a weekend warrior i.e), I don't know what to say.
She's as solid a player as I've seen over the years on the women's side.
If it aint broke, why fix it. Bo5 should stay in grand slams. I'm already at a stage where watching tennis or any other sport/TV is tiring. If it goes to Bo3, that's the death knell for my TV watching days
how?
I do not disagree with her skills. But look at a prime Steffi Graf; lean and mean and collecting trophies.
Tennis would benefit from having more colourful characters but this is in conflict with the vehicles players are increasingly becoming for large corporations.
Why is it that when it comes to women the looks that fit a stereotype to go along with the evident athleticism are so important?
If just being leaner was an advantage athletically, Brady should've wiped the court with her butt..
Brady is a non skilled forehand bot; end of story; that shows the depth in WTA for me and why I think the weekend warrior will win out there.
Okie dokie.
You must be quite an accomplished individual if you apply such high standards to anything in your life...!
I'm not bad for my UTR and my age; fitness is a bit down since Covid but no where near the dad body of the WTA.
When will we see you on TV?
Back in the 90's when I played NCAA Division 1 in local terrestrial TV. So fire up your time machine mate
Why did you not go pro?
That sounds like a question from my friends over the years that have never played tennis. Yeah the men's game is very had for a 5'11 dude.
Have a great weekend!
There's plenty of best of three tennis now, and is there anything to suggest it is more popular? What about those Tie Break Tens events? Was the Milan event with the shorter sets a big success?^
blah, there's an incentive to make the sport more popular
You heard of Diego Schwartzman?
Pretty sure he's shorter than you.
So basically you're saying you were not good enough. That's cool. Just wanted to know what kind of personal background you have for such piercing analysis about Osaka's fitness and the WTA's general standard.
It has already trending toward a serve dominated game with the quick points that follow as it is.
I was not good enough. I have to live with that and even today try to make myself better. Cheers.
Hey look, I'm sorry if I was being uncharitable to you there...
We all have assumptions based on past experience on what an athlete should look like. If I'm being honest, based on my own conditioning, I found the close-up shots of Osaka's mid-section aesthetically unpleasing.
But I'm happy to accept the evidence that clearly she's getting the results she wants.
So rather than presuming the reason for that is because the entire WTA is a ****show, I can accept that perhaps some athletes make certain trade-offs vs others - some may want more muscle mass and others may prefer a lighter, more agile frame.
Unlike in bodybuilding, where they get to 'cut' before contests, I don't think tennis players that put on muscle mass in the off-season have that luxury.
One area that tennis was designed to test is a players fitness and preparation. Have they put the work in?
We have taken that test away from tennis already with tie-breakers, injury time outs, wardrobe changes, etc. At least for the majors we need to keep this component of the game.
Changing the majors into a sprint by making them best of three, or changing each individual game into a sprint i.e. best of 4., eliminates this important measure from the sport.
It has already trending toward a serve dominated game with the quick points that follow as it is.
That boat has long ago set sail though don't you think.
It's more a TV sport now than a live audience one, and the business model reflects that unfortunately.
Cricket fans know this: the classic 5 day test format brought into play certain elements that a short-format just can't but then in this fast-paced world, who has the time to follow such a long format?
There's plenty of best of three tennis now, and is there anything to suggest it is more popular? What about those Tie Break Tens events? Was the Milan event with the shorter sets a big success?
the Grand Slams are marketed as the biggest events in tennis, and with their bo5 format of course are bigger indeed. make Wimbledon bo7 to make it the ultimate olympus of tennis.This is an extremely long and complex discussion.
But just for starters, it's largely the actual activity itself that brings about either excitement or disinterest.
If someone were to change the scoring system of rugby, from an allotted time system to a "first to" system, which would say, shorten the match by a third, I still wouldn't watch. It wouldn't change my perception one iota.
People who enjoy watching quality tennis want to see more of it, not less of it. Trying to bring in people who can only stand to watch X amount of tennis is a disastrous marketing exercise because you run the risk of alienating, at least partially, the audience which has contributed to the existing popularity of the sport. And of course, this may only provide a temporary boost within certain demographics.
If grand slam tennis is too long, then why does it receive much more viewership than other forms of tennis which is best of 3? The majority of grand slam tennis is no longer viewable on terrestrial television, so we cannot attribute this to membership only figures. Tennis does not benefit from being the type of sport than can be broadcast at peak hours, and this is because of its innate format and the fact that it is a travelling tour. That is something which cannot change.
Tennis would benefit from having more colourful characters but this is in conflict with the vehicles players are increasingly becoming for large corporations.
I would go as far as to argue that one cannot be a true tennis fan if they want to get rid of best of 5 sets in slams. It is an astoundingly ludicrous proposition, in my opinion.
the Grand Slams are marketed as the biggest events in tennis, and with their bo5 format of course are bigger indeed. make Wimbledon bo7 to make it the ultimate olympus of tennis.
already with bo5 we are talking about a frikking 4-hours show, naturally suboptimal for spectators.
^
your argument is poor, arguing that the made-biggest event by duration is the ultimately biggest. just think about it
We must be watching two different sports.
As far as I can see, tennis, with its homogenised surfaces, has favoured the fittest athletes who base their styles on baseline consistency more than anything else.
That boat has long ago set sail though don't you think.
It's more a TV sport now than a live audience one, and the business model reflects that unfortunately.
Cricket fans know this: the classic 5 day test format brought into play certain elements that a short-format just can't but then in this fast-paced world, who has the time to follow such a long format?