Bo3 vs Bo5 - Which is better?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 688153
  • Start date

Bo3 or Bo5?


  • Total voters
    28
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Do you guys prefer best of three or best of five set matches?
Both have their merits and shortcomings IMO.

Inb4 100% of you say Bo5, too.

I actually prefer best of 3. Shorter matches mean less time spent in front of the TV for me, and are just as exciting.

Best of 5 requires more endurance, but best of 3 requires the player to minimize their lapses as the match can slip away so quickly.
I like how the first set is so important in Bo3, they just seem to be shorter and sweeter matches.

I just think Bo5 is unnecessary and in 2014, when most people are too busy to spend 4-5 hours watching a tennis match, Bo3 is superior.

GS tourneys seem overly drawn out, with their alternate playing days for players, loooong Bo5 matches, and huge draws. Masters are great, nice and compact.

The one way in which Bo5 can be superior is the potential for epic matches, but epic Bo3 matches exist too (3-6 7-6 19-17 for instance).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Algo

Hall of Fame
Spending more time in front of the TV, watching tennis, is the best time spent in front of the TV. Can't get enough of the sport and now I'm even watching Challengers in LS, at least for my countrymates players.
So if I can get more time of tennis in a match, even better. Bo5 for me.
 

HipRotation

Hall of Fame
Some 3 set matches can be epic but I wish they didn't have final set tiebreaks, the one quoted could only happen at the Olympics I think

I agree that Bo5 can be unnecessary especially in early slam matches where the first two sets have already been won something like 6/1 6/2, it just doesn't feel great to watch such an inevitable match stretched out another set.

I would like them to go back to the old Major format in which the first few rounds were Bo3 and then it switched to Bo5 around the 3rd round but this time set it to Bo5 for QF onward. I would also like to see Bo5 finals back on the tour at least at the WTF, those kinds of matches surely deserve more pomp
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Some 3 set matches can be epic but I wish they didn't have final set tiebreaks, the one quoted could only happen at the Olympics I think

I agree that Bo5 can be unnecessary especially in early slam matches where the first two sets have already been won something like 6/1 6/2, it just doesn't feel great to watch such an inevitable match stretched out another set.

I would like them to go back to the old Major format in which the first few rounds were Bo3 and then it switched to Bo5 around the 3rd round but this time set it to Bo5 for QF onward. I would also like to see Bo5 finals back on the tour at least at the WTF, those kinds of matches surely deserve more pomp

What? I'm sure Andre Agassi would disagree with you, and angrily as well.

Agassi d. Medvedev

2-6 1-6 6-4 6-3 6-4

RG Final 1999.
 
Last edited:

HipRotation

Hall of Fame
Lots of people that have ever come back from 2 sets down in slams after getting creamed in the first 2 sets (and there are tons of them) would disagree with that.

Disagree in what way? How can you be certain that the person who came back would've lost if they played Bo3? The match certainly wouldn't have been played the exact same way like it was predetermined
 

Chico

Banned
Prefer Bo5, but I also realize it is unrealistic to expect players to play Bo5 on each and every tournament.
This current system with Bo5 on slams and DC and Bo3 everywhere else works pretty good I think.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Do you guys prefer best of three or best of five set matches?
Both have their merits and shortcomings IMO.

Inb4 100% of you say Bo5, too.

I actually prefer best of 3. Shorter matches mean less time spent in front of the TV for me, and are just as exciting.

Best of 5 requires more endurance, but best of 3 requires the player to minimize their lapses as the match can slip away so quickly.
I like how the first set is so important in Bo3, they just seem to be shorter and sweeter matches.

I just think Bo5 is unnecessary and in 2014, when most people are too busy to spend 4-5 hours watching a tennis match, Bo3 is superior.

GS tourneys seem overly drawn out, with their alternate playing days for players, loooong Bo5 matches, and huge draws. Masters are great, nice and compact.

The one way in which Bo5 can be superior is the potential for epic matches, but epic Bo3 matches exist too (3-6 7-6 19-17 for instance).

Yeah, Bo3 can be very exciting. Less tennis, it's hard to watch full bo5 matches. Also less rounds. It is more likely that tennis quality is higher entire match, because lower players can sustain their level. Then you don't need as much fitness, to this brings extra dimension of players who are dangerous.

The other aspect is lower margins, so more upsets. Also lower level players believe they can sustain their consistency for only 2 sets to win.

So, bo3 can be very exciting and very high quality. And you spend almost 3 times less time. So, yeah, I share your views. But we still need bo5. Bo5 is where better players are more likely to win and you need a lot of other stuff next to skills, like mentality, fitness. So, we can compare players better and also across eras. And Slams would lose its value if they were bo3.

Also those matches aren't that big, so less stress watching your favorite players, since it's not a slam. And shorter stress too, since match is over fast.

So, yes I enjoy bo3 a lot more lately and they have a lot of advantages. It's like the best deal, you get more matches in less time and less stress.
 

jelle v

Hall of Fame
My preference would be best of 5 for 1000 Finals.. ATP 1000 Finals usually have high quality players against each other. Would not be a punishment to see those quality players play a best of 5 final.
 

Chico

Banned
My preference would be best of 5 for 1000 Finals.. ATP 1000 Finals usually have high quality players against each other. Would not be a punishment to see those quality players play a best of 5 final.

Disagree.

Not possible nor realistic with dense Masters schedule. Can't expect top players playing exhausting Bo5 finals and than going to play 1st or 2nd round of next masters two days later.

There is a reason players insisted of changing these to Bo3.

Also playing the whole tournament Bo3 and only final Bo5 is simply not right. Rules should be the same for all matches on a particular tournament.
 

Serve&Bash

Semi-Pro
Best of 5.

I just don't take best of 3 set matches seriously. I think Masters and 500/250 are lame tournaments, but I still watch because I love tennis. In men's tennis, you are nothing until you can score 3 sets over an elite player (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic).
 

jelle v

Hall of Fame
Disagree.

Not possible nor realistic with dense Masters schedule. Can't expect top players playing exhausting Bo5 finals and than going to play 1st or 2nd round of next masters two days later.

There is a reason players insisted of changing these to Bo3.

Also playing the whole tournament Bo3 and only final Bo5 is simply not right. Rules should be the same for all matches on a particular tournament.

Why? This happened a lot in the past.. Bo5 matches seem fairer to me, because generally the better player wins.

What reason do you have for stating that rules should be the same for all matches on a particular court? The rules stay the same by the way..
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
It's a complicated question. If I was watching only one or the other day in and day out then I'd obviously pick best of 3. However there is nothing quite like best of 5, it is the game in its greatest form, it does leave no room for flukes, is a much higher mountain to climb, and on those occasions when best of 5 set tennis does come around, there is simply no comparison.

Let's put it like this, if I was forced to choose between watching only the 4 slams, and Davis Cup, or the Masters 1000 and below, and World Tour Finals? I'd pick the former in a heartbeat.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Bo3 pleaseeeeeee........ Some of the advantages:

1. It makes the sport more uniform. It's not like women have Bo5s for GSs. Better for new audiences to like the sport.

2. Shorter matches means better recuperation for pros. There would be no other sport where your pros are often not up to their best as much as tennis. How often you see the guy getting burnt out from his previous match. Contrast that with footballers. They play just 2 hours a week. A whole week. Football federations treat their pros well and ensure the highest quality of matches.

3. It's more technical that way. If I as an aspiring kid were to watch AO 2012 F I would be distanced from the sport for the sheer physicality of the sport. Tennis is not a "strength" based sport. It is a technical sport. Athletics is all about strength. Fitter, faster, stronger has the edge there. Tennis like football is technical. You have to emphasize the technique there. This is a problem with advancement of science we see in every sport. Less talented, limited guys make it to top with brute strength. I dont like this to happen in tennis. One reason why a more technical player like Nole is struggling against Rafa in Slams while he wins Bo3s. Currently the physicality is killing the sport. I know phenomenons like Roger exist in tennis, but that's anomaly.

I know there was a cry for slower courts back then when we had arguably lesser quality ground game. But I think it has backfired. The tour directors must not have seen the athleticism growing to compensate that. We should go back. Faster courts keeping the surface characteristics varied and shorter formats is the way to go. Even enforce TB rule in last set of Slams except final. No more Isner-Mahut please.

Good thread.
 
Last edited:

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
Best of 5, of course. True quality tells more over best of 5.

1. What about womens?

2. You have no problem player like Nishikori not lasting while someone like Murray can last longer?

3. If it's true quality, how about extending it to entire tour?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
1. What about womens?

They should play best of 5 sets too.

2. You have no problem player like Nishikori not lasting while someone like Murray can last longer?

Murray used to cramp like hell in 2005, sometimes in best of 3 sets matches.

3. If it's true quality, how about extending it to entire tour?

Because the majors are the biggest tournaments, and the ones that history remembers. Some masters finals used to be best of 5 sets, until that was changed, due to both Federer and Nadal pulling out of 2006 Hamburg following their epic Rome final. Then the powers that be started agitating to make all ATP sanctioned matches best of 3 sets. The change has only diluted the reputation of the events, if anything. What are the chances of another Italian Open final being remembered like the Nadal-Coria 2005 and Nadal-Federer 2006 finals? Zero.
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
They should play best of 5 sets too.
nooooooooooooooooooo......
7.jpg

just kidding, just kidding... ;)
the bo5 final at the masters was a good thing, by the way.


Because the majors are the biggest tournaments, and the ones that history remembers. Some masters finals used to be best of 5 sets, until that was changed, due to both Federer and Nadal pulling out of 2006 Hamburg following their epic Rome final. Then the powers that be started agitating to make all ATP sanctioned matches best of 3 sets. The change has only diluted the reputation of the events, if anything. What are the chances of another Italian Open final being remembered like the Nadal-Coria 2005 and Nadal-Federer 2006 finals? Zero.
the measure they took was too radical ! depending on their spot on the calendar, a few tournaments could still have a bo5 final without significantly jeopardizing the player's health, or their participation in the other main events...
(i think the byes for the top seeds in some small events was a good thing, on the other hand)
 
Last edited:

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
BO 3 probably. Especially on slower surfaces. BO5 makes it a question of who the most physical is, and also leads to very predictable matches most of the time. There's nothing like a thrilling 5 set match though.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Best of 3 for the most part - modern tennis matches are long enough.

I like Best of 5 for all kinds of finals though - WTF needs it the most.
 

kandamrgam

Hall of Fame
They should play best of 5 sets too.



Murray used to cramp like hell in 2005, sometimes in best of 3 sets matches.



Because the majors are the biggest tournaments, and the ones that history remembers. Some masters finals used to be best of 5 sets, until that was changed, due to both Federer and Nadal pulling out of 2006 Hamburg following their epic Rome final. Then the powers that be started agitating to make all ATP sanctioned matches best of 3 sets. The change has only diluted the reputation of the events, if anything. What are the chances of another Italian Open final being remembered like the Nadal-Coria 2005 and Nadal-Federer 2006 finals? Zero.

1. Forget Murray of 2005. My question was is it ok with you that Murray 2012 can win Slam but not Nishikori in 2014 or Davydenko in 2010?

2. So the epic-ness of Rome final matters to you more than both playing in Hamburg?

I'm not criticizing, just knowing.

3. There's a cause and effect here. Those finals are remembered for it went the full distance of 5 sets. It's true for any 5 set matches. The moment it becomes 3 sets, there will be equally remembered 3 set matches. Same as 5 setters losing prominence if there were 7 setters.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't see why you can't add Bo5 in WTFs. Last tournament of the year, no tournaments rest of the year, just resting to january. Wouldn't hurt IMO.
 

spirit95

Professional
The finals of major events like 1000s and YEC should be bo5. There's really no reason why not, players do not normally have to play the next day and bo5 is simply more entertaining. For the 'but-it's-too-long' whingers, you don't have to watch the entire match if you're not enjoying it.
 
Top