Do You Watch Five-Setters Start To Finish?

[Cindysphinx]

If two players are playing, do you sit there and watch the whole match, start to finish?

I ask because I find five sets of tennis to be awfully dull, usually. Yes, there's a titanic struggle going on, often. But watching any sporting event for four-plus hours is a long slog. When pressed for time (and I'm always pressed for time) I try to time it to pick up a men's match at the beginning of the third set. I can then see three pressure-packed sets.

I much prefer the shorter women's game. Either it's a blow-out and it's over quickly, or it's a great match that goes three wonderful sets.

If I think of the best matches I have seen, almost all have been women's matches because they are more compact. Hingis v. Graf at the French, for instance.

 

[ShcMad]

No offense, but I'd rather watch a 5:30-hour men's tennis slugfest than a 50-minute women's tennis match with 200 unforced errors and no net points won. This is just my opinion.

 

[Vitaly Evchenkov]

the best 5 setters for me are usually the US OPEN night match.
Sometimes it will start at 8 or 9 and you watch for a couple hours and it just gets interesting when they each have won 2 sets. It is also starting to get really late and you have to get up for work the next day. Sure you've watched a lot of tennis... BUT ....

The crowd starts getting into it....
Right when one player gets a momentum swing.. the opponent does something amazing...
Somebody cramps up even though they are playing great...

You just know if you go to sleep, it will be the greatest match ever, and you will have given up on it. So... you keep watching until 1:30am... show up late for work... and sleep in your car at lunch!!!

 

[christos_liaskos]

OP, I can see where you are coming from but I think you will probably end up getting slated by posting it on here, some people are just out to bash.

It is tough to watch a long five setter, especially if it hasnt got top name player in it. If its a 5 setter with a top player then I would most likely watch most of it but if it was 5 sets with no.50 v no.60, well luckily the tv networks dont tend to put those matches on anyway because then I would most likely switch to something else until it got really tight.

 

[Sagittar]

i sure do watch it from start to finish , sometimes i even widh that it lasts for more than 5 sets

 

[OrangeOne]

the best 5 setters for me are usually the US OPEN night match

For me, the best 5 setters are never at the UO, no 5 set match should finish with a tie-breaker.

 

[dubsplayer]

It depends on who's playing if I'm watching on TV. If I'm at a tourney I never leave because I've left before when I got bored or wanted to check out another match and ended up missing what turned out to be a barn burner. At home, with Tivo, I can watch for awhile then pause it for awhile and go do something else if I want to and then come back to it later. And then I get to skip all the commercials, at least until I catch up.

 

[vkartikv]

The only time I couldn't was the Rome final since it was so early in the morning. But otherwise I am all for 5 setters as long as it doesn't involve Fed or Haas or Safin.

 

[Feña14]

I love 5 setters. Sit me down infront of a match like Federer v Safin from the 2005 Australian Open and there is nothing more enjoyable.

 

[dubsplayer]

I love 5 setters. Sit me down infront of a match like Federer v Safin from the 2005 Australian Open and there is nothing more enjoyable.

But how about a Davydenko/Mr. Hingis match?

 

[christos_liaskos]

But how about a Davydenko/Mr. Hingis match?

I think the issue here is not the lenght of the match but just who is playing to start with. Davydenko for me is a bad choice because I like watching him but like I said earlier in this thread, I wouldn't really be interested in Mr. no.50 v Mr no.60. Then again I wouldnt be too interested in the latter anyway, 3 sets or 5 sets.

The case for 5 sets however though is strong because whenever we get a match up like Federer Roddick we are hoping for a 5 set classic, atleast when this 'rivalry' was just starting anyway. Slam finals and semi finals are made interesting because the best players battle it out and push physical endurance.

As far as the OP goes, I think he was thinking more that he just enjoys the business end of the match more. This was my idea when a few months ago a made a thread suggesting that 1st round matches should be shorter, possibly one set, therefore getting to the tension quicker, but the later rounds to still be best of 5 so we can still have classic matches between the top players. No doubt I will get slated again like last time for suggesting this but I was only trying to suggest what the OP meant. By the way OP, sorry if I was way off.

 

[lefty10spro]

All 5 setters have long dull patches. NO other athlete is asked to perform for such an insane length of time. Eventually a male tennis player will die in a 5 hour plus match. 3 out of 5 should be eliminated.

 

[OrangeOne]

All 5 setters have long dull patches. NO other athlete is asked to perform for such an insane length of time. Eventually a male tennis player will die in a 5 hour plus match.

Shall we start a list of sports where athletes perform for over 3-5 hours?

Ironman Triathlon - 8-17 hours depending on how fit you are.
Half-Ironman - Same deal, but half - so 4-8 hours
Road Cycling - Many longer races are 5+ hours, many stage races do this day after day for up to 3 weeks.
Mountain-Biking - Many events from 4 to 24 hours!!
Cricket - Fielding sides in tests are out there for 6-7 hours a day, so are batsmen in a long innings, admittedly with a few breaks in there (one 20mins & one 40mins), but there's no extreme heat rule, often played in the hottest summers in the hottest continents. Some will question the athleticism required, tell that to a fast bowler who has to bowl 20 or 30 overs and field reliably all day, or to a wicket-keeper.

There's more I'm sure, but I think you're getting the idea by now....

 

[Cindysphinx]

Nice list, Orange One.

No one would sit through coverage of a whole marathon, yet we're expected to salivate over a five-set match? Yeah, these 5-setters do have long dull patches.

Oh, and Christos, I'm a chick. Thanks for clarifying, though. I think you're on the right track.

 

[Mick]

I would only if I don't know the outcome of the match.

 

[ChipNCharge]

No, I don't think I've ever watched a five set match from start to finish. The quality of play drops because they're tired, players start cramping, and it usually turns into a match of endurance rather than talent and skill.

 

[avmoghe]

If two players are playing, do you sit there and watch the whole match, start to finish?

Of course!! In fact, I watch tennis for these five-setters! Needless to say, I don't like to miss a single point.

The greatest matches of our sport are the five setters (many without the tiebreaks in the final set)

Ivanesevic vs Rafter 2001 Wimbledon final
Borg vs Mac 1980 Wimbledon final
Safin vs Federer 2005 Australian Open semi
Rafter vs Agassi 2000-1 (?) Wimbledon encounters
Sampras vs Corretja 1996 US Open quarterfinal
I can keep on going if you like....

Heck, posters older and wiser than myself can list more famous 70s and earlier matches.

There is not a single women's match that can compare with these IMHO.

 

[Ronaldo]

Coria/Gaudio 2004 FO final, Coria/Nadal Rome final, watched both from start till finish.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Oh, come on. Novatna's Wimbledon loss. Hingis' French Open Loss.

Can you tell I like watching meltdowns?

 

[psamp14]

No offense, but I'd rather watch a 5:30-hour men's tennis slugfest than a 50-minute women's tennis match with 200 unforced errors and no net points won. This is just my opinion.

i agree...

the best 5 setters for me are usually the US OPEN night match.
Sometimes it will start at 8 or 9 and you watch for a couple hours and it just gets interesting when they each have won 2 sets. It is also starting to get really late and you have to get up for work the next day. Sure you've watched a lot of tennis... BUT ....

The crowd starts getting into it....
Right when one player gets a momentum swing.. the opponent does something amazing...
Somebody cramps up even though they are playing great...

You just know if you go to sleep, it will be the greatest match ever, and you will have given up on it. So... you keep watching until 1:30am... show up late for work... and sleep in your car at lunch!!!

i agree..

I love 5 setters. Sit me down infront of a match like Federer v Safin from the 2005 Australian Open and there is nothing more enjoyable.

i agree....




no thats not it....

i enjoy watching five set matches with top players, and even if its an early round, like i enjoyed watching roddick-verdasco of last years' us open, although they didnt show that match on CBS for all five sets

but i've watched the federer-nadal rome final, federer-safin 2005 AO semifinal, and ivanisevic-rafter wimbledon final a number of times

i do agree that maybe a 5th set should never be determined by a tiebreaker, but the us open night matches which go five sets are always very exciting

 

[callitout]

Only insanse people watch 5 hours of tennis consecutively. But the Rome Fed-Nadal final was great...I watched set 1 and 4 and 5.

 

[psamp14]

one more thing about watching 5 set matches....the best ones lately are ones with federer playing

because you know he always plays exceptional but has a rather poor 5 set record (9-10) ..actually very poor for a #1

but that makes for a more competitive match, and more exciting!

federer-nalbandian, federer-safin, federer-nadal.....

 

[countrydawg]

I love watching five set matches. I have watched as much of the AO that I can when I am not in class. Since I have a sprained ankle it makes it easier. I can watch the 3-7 coverage then eat watch the live matchs then sleep a little and then watch the 330am match without being bored.