BJK - men should not play 5 sets at Grand Slams anymore.

Should men continue to play best of 5 sets at Grand Slams or best of 3 sets?

  • Continue to play best of 5 sets.

    Votes: 94 94.0%
  • Reduce to best of 3 sets like the women.

    Votes: 6 6.0%

  • Total voters
    100
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chadillac

Guest
I like bjk less everytime she speaks now. She would rather ruins the mens game than make the women play 3/5 for the same amount money.

Another "equality" grab by her, lowering the mens tour to the wta standards.

She has no influence on mens tennis. She constantly interjects herself in issues like her opinion matter, annoying as heck how highly she thinks of herself.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
who cares, in 5 years they'll all be playing fast-4 tennis anyways. #MillennialAttentionSpans

tennis players also do not get paid for the amount of sets they play in a match or the time they spend on court, but for beating their opponent — whether in five sets or by retirement midway through the first — so her bid for BO3 for the men shouldn't have much to do with equal pay that some brosephs are bringing into this.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
The current arrangement works fine right? No need to play women more and/or men less, that just compounds the issue more.
 

r2473

Talk Tennis Guru
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/43337914

BJK arguing reducing men’s matches at slams to 3 sets. She is arguing women can play best of 5, but that best of 5 is taking it out too much of the men. Do you agree?
I can see a compromise here.

At present, men play BO5, women BO3. Combined, that is BO8. Which is just too much. BJK wants it to be BO3 for each, which is BO6 combined.

How about we keep men at BO5 and have women play BO1. That is also BO6 combined.

For this, I'd be in favor of doubling, nay tripling women's prize money. Everybody wins.
 

Badabing888

Hall of Fame
How would women playing best of 5 sets at slams work? Extend slams to say 2 and half weeks? Could work with 3/4 slams going to have roofs at at least 2 of their stadia by the end of this decade. Just the French to build at least 2 with a roof.

I am vehemently against reducing men’s to best of 3. For me best of 5 at slams show who are the very best and for it to be only at 4 tournaments a year (DC until they replace it with the Tennis World Cup format) is enough. I was gutted that they reduced it to best of 3 at the WTF final.

I agree that BJK is trying to justify the women getting equal pay with men by reducing men’s matches to best of 3. If women can play best of 5 then make them - they run full marathons, they are full time pro athletes.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
How would women playing best of 5 sets at slams work? Extend slams to say 2 and half weeks? Could work with 3/4 slams going to have roofs at at least 2 of their stadia by the end of this decade. Just the French to build at least 2 with a roof.

I am vehemently against reducing men’s to best of 3. For me best of 5 at slams show who are the very best and for it to be only at 4 tournaments a year (DC until they replace it with the Tennis World Cup format) is enough. I was gutted that they reduced it to best of 3 at the WTF final.

I agree that BJK is trying to justify the women getting equal pay with men by reducing men’s matches to best of 3. If women can play best of 5 then make them - they run full marathons, they are full time pro athletes.
Don't believe that women really want to play five set matches. Like to see a poll of all the WTA players. A lot of them are probably texting each other today in disagreement.
 

merwy

G.O.A.T.
I'm a little torn about this. I personally enjoy 3 set matches more than 5 set matches on average, simply because some "easy" matches get dragged out too much in the BO5 format, and sometimes the losing player can sneak in a set somewhere along the way which makes the whole ordeal even more extended. Also, I dislike the idea of tennis becoming a sport about endurance more than skill/ability. I feel like the whole sport would be more "to the point" and pragmatic if we just shortened it a bit. 3-4 hours for an average GS match is just way too long for my taste. Makes it hard to sit through the whole thing (people have got other things to do).

On the other hand, the most awesome, memorable matches in history are BO5.. would be sad to miss those completely. In the end, it should be decided by the male players and the fans/broadcasting companies. Pretty much everyone except for BJK.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I'm a little torn about this. I personally enjoy 3 set matches more than 5 set matches on average, simply because some "easy" matches get dragged out too much in the BO5 format, and sometimes the losing player can sneak in a set somewhere along the way which makes the whole ordeal even more extended. Also, I dislike the idea of tennis becoming a sport about endurance more than skill/ability. I feel like the whole sport would be more "to the point" and pragmatic if we just shortened it a bit. 3-4 hours for an average GS match is just way too long for my taste. Makes it hard to sit through the whole thing (people have got other things to do).

On the other hand, the most awesome, memorable matches in history are BO5.. would be sad to miss those completely. In the end, it should be decided by the male players and the fans/broadcasting companies. Pretty much everyone except for BJK.
I think you could argue for men going over to best of 3 in the first 3 rounds or so at some point. That decreases the wear and tear and increases the upset risk. It also makes the matches involving 'cannon fodder' players shorter.
I wouldn't want to miss out on Bo5 completely, but I wouldn't mind the initial rounds being a wee bit quicker every now and again. And imagine how the non fanatic fans must be feeling then...
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Sure. And while we're at it:

NHL games should be only 2 periods.
NFL players should call it quits at half time.
and MLB games should last no longer than 60 minutes. They're boring anyway.

All this because players in their 30s have a tendency to get injured and some 74 year old senile has-been says she has the solution.
 
Last edited:

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
who cares, in 5 years they'll all be playing fast-4 tennis anyways. #MillennialAttentionSpans

tennis players also do not get paid for the amount of sets they play in a match or the time they spend on court, but for beating their opponent — whether in five sets or by retirement midway through the first — so her bid for BO3 for the men shouldn't have much to do with equal pay that some brosephs are bringing into this.
Regardless, men's sports leagues shouldn't ever be compared to women's leagues and her argument seems to stem more from insecurity than anything. "Women don't play Bo5 and, therefore, men shouldn't either because it makes women look bad" sort of thing.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
because i'm a traditionalist i can't say i want to see this. but objectively, it would definitely make things interesting, produce a greater variety of winning players, give younger players a bigger shot, and keep everyone from going out with injuries every couple weeks. so....
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Regardless, men's sports leagues shouldn't ever be compared to women's leagues and her argument seems to stem more from insecurity than anything. "Women don't play Bo5 and, therefore, men shouldn't either because it makes women look bad" sort of thing.
Are you projecting here, or is there some part in the text where she actually suggested this?
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I agree that BJK is trying to justify the women getting equal pay with men by reducing men’s matches to best of 3.
She no longer needs to "justify" anything. The women won their fight for equal pay at the Slams a long time ago. Even Wimbledon, the laggard on the issue, conformed to the other three tournaments 11 years ago. Right now, is there any serious risk that any of the slams would rescind the equal pay policy? No, there is not, despite the occasional carping from guys like Simon.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Are you projecting here, or is there some part in the text where she actually suggested this?
I didn't read the article. I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt and assumed what he said was true. And I have no reason not to since tennis has always attracted a special amount of feminism. As it's the one sport in which the female league is relevant.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
because i'm a traditionalist i can't say i want to see this. but objectively, it would definitely make things interesting, produce a greater variety of winning players, give younger players a bigger shot, and keep everyone from going out with injuries every couple weeks. so....
I think it will happen eventually, though probably not within the next five years. Both player health and more predictable scheduling (for both TV viewers and onsite fans) will be cited. Diehards will object, of course, but their numbers will probably be too small to persuade anyone.

Many people forget (or did not know in the first place) that many men's U.S. Open singles matches were two-out-of-three in the years 1975-78. In fact, if you count by the number of matches, these tournaments were mostly 2/3.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
I think it will happen eventually, though probably not within the next five years. Both player health and more predictable scheduling (for both TV viewers and onsite fans) will be cited. Diehards will object, of course, but their numbers will probably be too small to persuade anyone.

Many people forget (or did not know in the first place) that many men's U.S. Open singles matches were two-out-of-three in the years 1975-78. In fact, if you count by the number of matches, these tournaments were mostly 2/3.
It won't happen simply because men's matches get higher ratings. They don't want to shorten their coverage because they will lose money.

WTA coverage is interspersed throughout ATP coverage to spice things up. Women's matches are variety, not the main event, which is why women's finals are always before the men's. Best of 5 women's matches would lead to lower ratings and less money.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
It won't happen simply because men's matches get higher ratings. They don't want to shorten their coverage because they will lose money.

WTA coverage is interspersed throughout ATP coverage to spice things up. They are variety, not the main event. Best of 5 women's matches would lead to lower ratings and less money.
Are you arguing that the men will never move to 2/3, or that the women will never move to 3/5? Those are two separate issues.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Are you arguing that the men will never move to 2/3, or that the women will never move to 3/5? Those are two separate issues.
Both. I doubt it anyway. I was explaining why I think men play longer matches in the biggest events.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Well, as I've indicated, I believe that the men's change will occur someday. The women's change almost surely will not occur, for the simple reason that any structural change to tennis that makes events longer, aggravates the complexity of scheduling, and/or increases the load on players, will be deemed detrimental to the sport.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Well, as I've indicated, I believe that the men's change will occur someday. The women's change almost surely will not occur, for the simple reason that any structural change to tennis that makes events longer, aggravates the complexity of scheduling, and/or increases the load on players, will be deemed detrimental to the sport.
I mean, I have never seen the WTA tour finals on TV. Whatever their equivalent to the WTF is.

Slams are unique in that ESPN, for example, will show both men's and women's matches in the same programming during all day coverage. That typically isn't the case. Maybe it is for Indian Wells and a couple other Masters. Most women's tour events get zero coverage here.

I don't think that ESPN will ever want to show an equal amount of women's coverage to men's. And the ITF would only shorten men's matches if they thought it would improve ratings, which I doubt, but I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:

tacou

G.O.A.T.
We do need to do more to protect player health. Eliminating the potential of playing 1-2 extra sets per match at four tournaments per year is not the answer.

I wonder how many total "extra sets" per year top 10 players play. I bet it's 6-8.
 

Razaron

Rookie
We do need to do more to protect player health. Eliminating the potential of playing 1-2 extra sets per match at four tournaments per year is not the answer.

I wonder how many total "extra sets" per year top 10 players play. I bet it's 6-8.
This is a sport, it's athletic.. stop trying to make the sport a job in the park.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top