UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
Let's be honest here, Bo3 is the future and it IS inevitable but Bo5 will not die out completely . The SF/F of slams will remain Bo5, or at least the final.
Is it Inevitable that Men's Slams Will Eventually Switch to Bo3?
- Thread starter Krish872007
- Start date
Mustard
Bionic Poster
If they want that, go back to 16 seeds at the majors. We will then see that players ranked 17-32 can be drawn against top 16 players in the first two rounds, whereas 32 seeds ensures that top 32 players are kept apart in the first two rounds.
They almost did this from the start of 2019, but changed their minds under pressure from some players.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
It is not the future at all. Best of 5 is where excellence and legendary status is.
Pheasant
Legend
This won't be a popular opinion.
But I want them to speed up the courts and keep the best of 5 setup. Faster courts would cut down the rallies a lot, which prevent more injuries. It would also speed up the game quite a bit.
I'd also love to see them go to a Best of 5 setup in the finals of all of the Masters and the WTF.
But I want them to speed up the courts and keep the best of 5 setup. Faster courts would cut down the rallies a lot, which prevent more injuries. It would also speed up the game quite a bit.
I'd also love to see them go to a Best of 5 setup in the finals of all of the Masters and the WTF.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
The courts are faster now than in the noughties, apparently. You'd be better off banning poly strings to get what you want. Gut would make it harder to avoid unforced errors, give big servers more of a flat thud when they serve.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
Catering to the attention span of Gen-Z I suspect.
Crazy when you stop and think about it.
World #2 Nadal in 2005 and 2006 as a 19-20 year old played 160 matches across both those seasons. Won 138 of them. Played 48 BO5 matches (30% of the total)
Then #1 Federer played 182 matches in that same period, winning 173 of them. 68 of these encounters were BO5 situations (37.4% of the total)
Not sure if anyone has played anywhere near that amount since then with the sudden retreat of BO5
Mustard
Bionic Poster
And despite that reduction in best of 5 sets matches, the newer players seem more inconsistent and more burned out. Really odd.
optic yellow
Legend
Tennis would be better without poly I think this is undeniable fact.
optic yellow
Legend
Correct. This is why women's tennis is unfortunately not at the level of men's tennis. I can't take their draw at slams as seriously as I want to because of it.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
And the "pay women equal prize money" brigade either go quiet or suggest that men's tennis go to best of 3 in the majors when you suggest that women go to best of 5 in the majors. That political correctness and corner cutting is probably behind the attacks on the best of 5 format.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
The sad reality after the highs of the 80s, 90s, late-00s and early to mid-10s when you had ATG talent scattered everywhere. This might just be a normalisation period after the last prolonged high of the Big 3 era and we all need time to adjust our expectations all the way down. Maybe the next ATG simply hasn't arrived yet.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
But, for example, even a player like Alberto Mancini, won Monte Carlo and Rome in the same year, in 1989. In the finals, he beat Becker in 4 sets (7-5, 2-6, 7-6, 7-5) in Monte Carlo and beat Agassi in 5 sets in Rome (6-3, 4-6, 2-6, 7-6, 6-1), saving championship point against Agassi in Rome. Mancini is not an all-time great tennis player, yet had some brilliant high moments there, and the fact that those finals were best of 5 would have made it even better still.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
A lot of dead wood in the schedule. That's what should be cut.
optic yellow
Legend
Yeah that is embarrassing to me.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Well Nadal and Djokovic and Federer and Murray were wiping their butts with the whole field in the Masters events since 2005. The rest of the tour managed to grab a couple when the big guys got bored and couldn't be bothered showing up. If the majors going best of 3 and with days off inbetween matches, the dominance would be even more overwhelming. Just imagine a 19 year old Djokovic or Nadal or Federer coming in today. Nobody would stop them from winning masters and best of 3 majors until the year 2042 probably.
joekapa
Legend
Those who want BO3 in slams, are better off following Picket Ball.
If it happens it will the death of the Slams.......no doubt. Even if they just keep BO5 for the semi and final. Slams will be seen as an overrated Masters.
If anything needs to happen, is the reduction of the number of Masters, and Masters should have a BO5 semi and final......to balance things out.
If it happens it will the death of the Slams.......no doubt. Even if they just keep BO5 for the semi and final. Slams will be seen as an overrated Masters.
If anything needs to happen, is the reduction of the number of Masters, and Masters should have a BO5 semi and final......to balance things out.
optic yellow
Legend
Women's slams feel like a joke in comparison to the men's because they are BO3. There is no gravity to the match because a player cannot come back from 0-2 down. This shortcircuiting of a match that could end up going three more sets in a BO5 makes the product feel insubstantial and tasteless. It is most laughable to me that women play under these conditions while earning equal prize money to the men.
joekapa
Legend
Point is if women are able to play in a long drawn out 5 setter. E.g. Imagine the 2012 AO final, that went to close to 6 hours.....where Nadal and Djokovic essentially collapsed in the end. Could Azarenka and Sharapova (who were the women's finalists) play the same brutal 5 setter ?
I rather expect the opposite, because for a generally dominant player it's harder to keep the dominance in Best of 3. Upsets will happen easier, and the longer the distance, the better for the favourite. Rod Laver would have won no CYGS in Best of 3 for example. Rather expect everything to become quite random, like in current WTA.
I also doubt that playing four Best of 5 tournaments per year really shortens careers in comparison to have them Best of 3 as well.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
You mean Federer/Nadal/Djokovic hoarding all the Masters on top of the majors didn't happen? Barely anyone else won anything whenever the big 3 or the big 2 were in the tournament. The only other guy who won a large lot of Masters was Andy Murray who would've been a legend if not for the big 3 in his way.
That's no argument against it, if they won almost all the Slams AND almost all the Masters. Still, upsets happened easier at Masters, even back then. This effect increased during the past few years. But it's only logical: The longer the distance, the more time a favourite has to still turn around a deficit that would already be a loss in Best of 3.
I don't see what isn't to understand here. It's the same like a certain amount of H2H matches being played. When is it more likely that the generally better player will have the lead? After just a few matches or after many matches? After 3 matches or after 5 matches? I think the answer is clear. The more likely a certain outcome is, even more likely will it occur after a longer distance. That's elementary probability calculation.
If you really think Best of 3 will make it MORE likely for top players to dominate than Best of 5, the logical next step would be that it's YET more likely if only one set would be played. I think now it's clear where we are going here.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
If slams switch to BO3, I'll be done watching tennis.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
You make a good point. But still, I feel someone who's so far and above the competition is going to win the bulk of the big titles, no matter if it's 5 sets or 3 sets.
But I really don't ever seen the majors becoming best of 3. I think they'll probably change the balls or something. Also with BO5, the networks can throw in a lot more adverts and commercials which suits them fine along with the sponsors. Plus the long matches adds to the drama. Alcaraz/Sinner for example is what people enjoyed most about the USO last year.
nolefam_2024
G.O.A.T.
No one wants 16 seed draws. People want to see better matches at the far end. So this is never going to happen. 32 seeds at slams is what makes slams bigger than other tournaments.
Purists fine. They are not only ones who watch tennis. Young fans don't want to sit through 4 hrs matches even if they accept 5 set legendary status.
optic yellow
Legend
I mean women can complete marathons right?
Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
Yeah we don't need your ideas
joekapa
Legend
Yes, but it ain't the same sport.......
optic yellow
Legend
What does that mean
joekapa
Legend
That running a marathon, and playing a tough 5 setter for 5 hours is different !
optic yellow
Legend
Now try different in any way that is meaningful or relevant to the comparison.
Julius Caesar
Professional
Id love to see Best of 7.
joekapa
Legend
Well I have no further argument to make.
Tell me why you think women should/can play 5 setters at the slams ?
Perhaps they can......maybe they should put it to a test.....see how it goes.
I do not know. I do know that tennis has changed a lot over the years. So I’m not going to say it won’t happen. If it ever did happen it would be for one reason. Money. Atp/wta know exactly how long people tune in for various matches and how long their attention span is. In the end it’s a business and they will do what they think is the best for it.
kayapit
Semi-Pro
Have you never seen women compete in Ironman triathlon?
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I'm done with tennis if this happens. All that will be left will be 2007 USO Roddick threads.
joekapa
Legend
You're right.
kayapit
Semi-Pro
The best thing about the structure of a tennis match is that you're never too far behind to win - you literally can not run out of time. In other sports you can get so far behind there is not enough time to come back. Not so in tennis; 2-5 in the third down two sets, no problem. Lengthening other sports most often just adds wasted time with the same result. Lengthening tennis matches legitimately adds drama and often allows for incredible story lines to develop. IMO it would be the death of the majors and what they mean and provide to go best of 3.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
If slams do switch to BO5, subsequent records can be thrown into the bin as they won't count.
I think the first 3-5 rounds will eventually switch to best of 3 sets - I stress that I would strongly dislike and disagree with that change but sadly think it’s inevitable.
The semi-finals and final (and maybe the 1-2 preceding rounds) would surely remain best of 5 for at least a while longer though.
I still fondly remember the days when there were plenty of best of 5 set classics in the Davis Cup, YEC and masters series finals and also certain finals of other tournaments.
The semi-finals and final (and maybe the 1-2 preceding rounds) would surely remain best of 5 for at least a while longer though.
I still fondly remember the days when there were plenty of best of 5 set classics in the Davis Cup, YEC and masters series finals and also certain finals of other tournaments.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Why is it inevitable? Who does it benefit?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
That's false.
32 seeds has created more of a protection for top 32 players in the early rounds of majors. 16 seeds would be harder for players ranked 17-32 because they would now be unseeded, but these players could also be a bigger threat to top 16 players earlier in tournaments as well, so 16 seeds isn't as protective of the top 16 players either. And it doesn't mean that top 16 players would definitely face players ranked 17-32 in the first two rounds, only that it could happen.
That's their problem. No legendary status for best of 3 short matches in the majors.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
They could do it just as easily as the men. Isn't it actually easier to win a best of 3 sets major over 2 weeks than a best of 3 sets tournament that has to finish in a week? The majors are supposed to be the hardest events to win.
Lower ranked players as they'd better chances of causing upsets, I'd assume more and more top players in future generations would like the prospect of being able to win grand slam titles spending less time on court, TV broadcasters in terms of making their scheduling easier etc. I also think they'll probably be assumptions made that the change and shorter matches would be necessary to attract younger fans, retain fans with shorter attention spans etc.
It would be ridiculous of course and I'd hate it. However when the Davis Cup scrapped best of 5 set matches after nearly 120 years, I resigned myself into thinking that the format was on life support, at least in the early rounds at majors. At least the Olympic final reverting to best of 5 sets was a step back in the right direction though.
