Grand Slams should switch to a 5 /3 format

[joemanblues]

from the qualifying rounds up to the Final the format should be a best of 5 for the 1st round then the 2nd round a best of three and so on til the Final which would be a best of 5, this should reduce injuries, keep a hot player in the first round from 'stealing' a match if he doesn't have the consistent skills of a higher ranked player, and it should keep the tennis level at a relatively high level since players will have more rest, and the scheduling should be better as well..what do you guys think ?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It should always be a best of five format, but better scheduling will help players arrange their training/preparation time more efficiently.

 

[TimeSpiral]

Best of five is a higher level of tennis than Bo3. I don't believe this format should be--or will be--changed in the slams. Even though much of the early rounds are blow-outs, are bad TV, and poor live spectating, it gives the younger players the chance to test and train for Bo5 set matches. It's important to keep them around, imo.

However; the fifth being an advantage set needs to be changed. I'm all for this rule change. If you want advantage sets in the final, fine, but in all the matches leading up to the final I'd like to see all sets as tie break sets.

 

[The_Order]

Wait, Bo5 in the first 2 rounds, then only Bo3 until the final?

That'll never happen, people pay a decent amount of money for QF and SF tickets and it's not to watch 2 sets, they want the 5 set wars and if we take away Bo5 from slams they will lose all of their "magic". Bo5 is what makes the slams feel more important than any other tournaments and if you start playing around with formats, reducing the match times then you also reduce the excitement of the majors.

There have been MANY great 5 set SF in majors over the year. Look at this year alone:

Fed v Murray AO
Nadal v Novak RG
Novak v Del Potro WIM

All epic encounters that wouldn't happen under this Bo3 system.

 

[mike danny]

Wait, Bo5 in the first 2 rounds, then only Bo3 until the final?

That'll never happen, people pay a decent amount of money for QF and SF tickets and it's not to watch 2 sets, they want the 5 set wars and if we take away Bo5 from slams they will lose all of their "magic". Bo5 is what makes the slams feel more important than any other tournaments and if you start playing around with formats, reducing the match times then you also reduce the excitement of the majors.

There have been MANY great 5 set SF in majors over the year. Look at this year alone:

Fed v Murray AO
Nadal v Novak RG
Novak v Del Potro WIM

All epic encounters that wouldn't happen under this Bo3 system.

in a way i agree. there have also been other epic matches in the early rounds thanks to the format:

fed-tipsarevic AO 2008

fed-haas RG 2009

nadal-rosol W 2012

Murray-wawrinka W 2009

Djokovic-seppi RG 2012

I am sure there are other ex also

 

[newpball]

Best of five is a higher level of tennis than Bo3.

I don't think so.

Why do you think that player more sets gives a higher level of tennis?

With that argument a best of 7 should give an even higher level of tennis?

 

[marc45]

if you do stay with bo5 early I did see someone (Wertheim I believe) say you could have a "mercy rule" like in Little League where if a guy is getting blown out by Djokovic or as Fed would do regularly they don't get to play a third...say they've won less than 4 games combined in the first two sets...somebody said folks in the final expect more than 2 sets...that's for sure although in retrospect when you look back at this year's U.S. open final it's hard to see anyone complaining (outside of Djokovic fans of course) that those first 3 sets weren't enough, in length and drama, especially the end of the 3rd, to qualify as a legitimate Grand Slam final...and then the 4th did prove to be anti-climactic...but I know you can't count on that...you could have a guy down a set and a break in 45 minutes and everyone gets nervous and upset then

 

[TimeSpiral]

I don't think so.

Why do you think that player more sets gives a higher level of tennis?

With that argument a best of 7 should give an even higher level of tennis?

Yeah, Bo7 would be an even higher level. It's simple logic, really.

Physical endurance, strategy, and streaks / letdowns all have different dynamics when you have to win three sets instead of two. The game at the very top is already difficulty level insane at the Bo5 level. It's arguable that the 2012 Australian Open final was right at the edge of the envelope of what's physically possible. Minutes after the match these two champions couldn't stand without assistance.

Increasing play to Bo7 would very likely exceed the practical capacity of today's athletes and could potentially extend the match-time well beyond anything reasonable for fans or TV sponsors. One could argue that a 6 hour final is too much for the latter and some of the former.

 

[newpball]

Yeah, Bo7 would be an even higher level. It's simple logic, really.

Physical endurance, strategy, and streaks / letdowns all have different dynamics when you have to win three sets instead of two. The game at the very top is already difficulty level insane at the Bo5 level. It's arguable that the 2012 Australian Open final was right at the edge of the envelope of what's physically possible. Minutes after the match these two champions couldn't stand without assistance.

Increasing play to Bo7 would very likely exceed the practical capacity of today's athletes and could potentially extend the match-time well beyond anything reasonable for fans or TV sponsors. One could argue that a 6 hour final is too much for the latter and some of the former.

It looks like your idea of higher level tennis is very different from my idea. My idea of high level tennis is when the players are fit, when they get exhausted the level goes down. And you can often see this, 5 setters are pretty much serve games because the serve is the last things that fails when the players are too tired.

Oh well, enjoy you 'high level' 5th sets.

 

[joemanblues]

Some may be confused

when I stated the rounds should be 5/3 it means that the 1st round of main draw would be a best of 5 2nd round would be best of three, 3rd round would be best of 5, 4th round would be best of 3, quarters would be best of 5, semis would be best of 3 and finals best of 5

 

[tennixpl]

when I stated the rounds should be 5/3 it means that the 1st round of main draw would be a best of 5 2nd round would be best of three, 3rd round would be best of 5, 4th round would be best of 3, quarters would be best of 5, semis would be best of 3 and finals best of 5

As if tennis isn't difficult enough for a casual observer to enjoy watching..... Please explain how this makes sense? why 5to3to5to3to5to3to5.... um huh?

is there some evidence that second round matches should only be 3 sets?

 

[TimeSpiral]

when I stated the rounds should be 5/3 it means that the 1st round of main draw would be a best of 5 2nd round would be best of three, 3rd round would be best of 5, 4th round would be best of 3, quarters would be best of 5, semis would be best of 3 and finals best of 5

Err ... this makes much less sense than the original OP. Sorry, brother!

I think an idea that could gain momentum is limiting or removing the fifth being an advantage set instead of a tie-break set.

 

[joemanblues]

Err ... this makes much less sense than the original OP. Sorry, brother!

I think an idea that could gain momentum is limiting or removing the fifth being an advantage set instead of a tie-break set.

ok it would look like this

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Quarters Semis Finals
best best best best best best best
of 5 of 3 of 5 of 3 of 5 of 3 of 5

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

when I stated the rounds should be 5/3 it means that the 1st round of main draw would be a best of 5 2nd round would be best of three, 3rd round would be best of 5, 4th round would be best of 3, quarters would be best of 5, semis would be best of 3 and finals best of 5

Posters have a right to be confused, because it's an utterly ridiculous concept.

Why don't players just change ends after every point?

 

[joemanblues]

Posters have a right to be confused, because it's an utterly ridiculous concept.

Why don't players just change ends after every point?

there is nothing wrong with being confused about it, I just think that it would provide for higher quality tennis over all and allow the higher ranked players a chance not to get taken out in the first round by a player that is playing particularly good for two sets

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I'm like most in that I'd prefer to keep it Bo5, but if tennis really wants to cut down the time, why don't they do Bo5, but if you win the first two sets you advance (maybe this wouldn't apply for the SF/F). That would cut down on a number of sets since the player who won the first two sets usually wins the match anyway.

Of course you'd be foregoing the 0-2 comebacks, but that's a small number of matches.

 

[TimeSpiral]

ok it would look like this

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Quarters Semis Finals
best best best best best best best
of 5 of 3 of 5 of 3 of 5 of 3 of 5

there is nothing wrong with being confused about it, I just think that it would provide for higher quality tennis over all and allow the higher ranked players a chance not to get taken out in the first round by a player that is playing particularly good for two sets

Sorry, man. What you're proposing is not a popular or good idea.

I see that you're new to the forum. Welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here, but let me give you a heads up: Rule change proposal threads aren't typically received well. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't been hammered harder for this one.

As far as the rules of tennis go, and the formats for major tournaments, you can be rest assured that the best and brightest and loudest in the industry are working on all of these issues. Tennis is a big-money sport.

 

[joemanblues]

Sorry, man. What you're proposing is not a popular or good idea.

I see that you're new to the forum. Welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here, but let me give you a heads up: Rule change proposal threads aren't typically received well. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't been hammered harder for this one.

As far as the rules of tennis go, and the formats for major tournaments, you can be rest assured that the best and brightest and loudest in the industry are working on all of these issues. Tennis is a big-money sport.

why do you dismiss the idea out of hand ? this would give the top players a chance to play some doubles as well

 

[FrontHeadlock]

why do you dismiss the idea out of hand ? this would give the top players a chance to play some doubles as well

The alternating number of sets per rounds makes no sense and there is no rationale involved in suggesting it. For example, why should the QF be Bo5 while the SF is Bo3?

At least my suggestion makes some intuitive sense.

 

[Bukmeikara]

why do you dismiss the idea out of hand ? this would give the top players a chance to play some doubles as well

Because Doubles dont make money

 

[joemanblues]

The alternating number of sets per rounds makes no sense and there is no rationale involved in suggesting it. For example, why should the QF be Bo5 while the SF is Bo3?

At least my suggestion makes some intuitive sense.

you seem to not have read the whole post, the reasoning behind it is that after a best of 5 match if the match did go the whole five sets, then a player would get a 'break' on his next match by only playing a best of three match, and the benefits of the format would be that you still get to see some best of five matches, the players will all be relatively well rested for their next match, and the level of play should be consistently higher..if those are not benefits to watching a sport then I don't know what is

 

[TimeSpiral]

why do you dismiss the idea out of hand ? this would give the top players a chance to play some doubles as well

I didn't dismiss the idea out of hand. I gave it due consideration.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

you seem to not have read the whole post, the reasoning behind it is that after a best of 5 match if the match did go the whole five sets, then a player would get a 'break' on his next match by only playing a best of three match, and the benefits of the format would be that you still get to see some best of five matches, the players will all be relatively well rested for their next match, and the level of play should be consistently higher..if those are not benefits to watching a sport then I don't know what is

doesn't make sense bro

 

[joemanblues]

doesn't make sense bro

how does it not make sense ?

 

[TimeSpiral]

you seem to not have read the whole post, the reasoning behind it is that after a best of 5 match if the match did go the whole five sets, then a player would get a 'break' on his next match by only playing a best of three match, and the benefits of the format would be that you still get to see some best of five matches, the players will all be relatively well rested for their next match, and the level of play should be consistently higher..if those are not benefits to watching a sport then I don't know what is

Holy smokes, Batman. That's an 88 word sentence!

 

[joemanblues]

Holy smokes, Batman. That's an 88 word sentence!

when all else fails..look at the grammar

 

[TimeSpiral]

when all else fails..look at the grammar

Nothing else failed.

You posted a thread proposing a rule change for the biggest tennis tournaments our sport has, and then asked for feedback. The small number of people who bothered to respond do not like the idea. There is really nothing else to hash out, yet you keep pushing back.

There is precedent for this type of rule change, but unfortunately history stands in opposition to your idea. Prior to 2008, 1000 level events played a best of five in the finals match only. Since 2008, they are all best of three.

There is no precedent for an alternating Bo5/Bo3.