Masters and WTF finals are no longer 5-set matches. Which player benefited the most?

3 sets instead of 5. who benefited the most?


  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .

The-Champ

Legend
Which top player benefited the most from the fact that Masters and WTF finals are no longer 5-set matches. Before voting, consider the following:

1. Who is the steadiest player mentally in a 5 set match?
2. Who has the best 5 set record?
3. Which player has the ability to adjust his game mid-match?
4. Who is the strongest physically?
 

m2nk2

Hall of Fame
The field (anyone other than Fed/Nad/Djo) did. Unfortunately, they are too weak to win even in best of three.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Which top player benefited the most from the fact that Masters and WTF finals are no longer 5-set matches. Before voting, consider the following:

1. Who is the steadiest player mentally in a 5 set match?
2. Who has the best 5 set record?
3. Which player has the ability to adjust his game mid-match?
4. Who is the strongest physically?
Another factor is who is more likely to played extended matches and tired themselves out for the rest of the season.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The answer is probably Djokovic. Federer in a couple of finals last year too perhaps. His end of season might of suffered if he played so many long masters finals.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
is he really? he outlasted Nadal and Murray back to back at the AO, beat fedal back to back at the USO2011.
But I really doubt he would have had that dominant stretch in 2011 if Masters + WTF finals were best of 5.

Or I doubt he would win 3-4 masters per year if finals were best of 5.

Also would he have 4 WTF now if the finals were best of 5?
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
is he really? he outlasted Nadal and Murray back to back at the AO, beat fedal back to back at the USO2011.
Both of those incidents were in his one stretch of amazing play from the DC 2010 - AO 2012. These are only two occurrences and are not representative for what it would mean if Djokovic had to play a BO5 for every Masters 1000 final.

Beyond that Djokovic has maintained his status as number one mainly by winning a buttload of Masters 1000 in his 1-Slam years and I doubt that he would have done that as easily had the format been BO5. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether he could have held his amazing form in 2011 as long as he did if he played all those Masters finals as BO5 (especially all those clay finals against Nadal).

The way I see it he has clearly benefitted the most.
 

BVSlam

Professional
I guess Nadal for Masters since that would have made it even harder on his body considering he reaches most finals anyway. WTF is hard to say as aside from Davydenko in '09, Fed and Djokovic have won all of them since 2006 onwards. Maybe it even benefitted Fed more because he faced Nadal in the 2010 final and maybe Nadal would have played a better match were it best of five against someone he owns mostly in that format.

In terms of masters, I don't think anyone necessarily benefitted from it or anything aside from maybe Rafa on clay, as it only matters in the final and I believe only IW/Miami/MC/Rome/Hamburg were best of five right? The players who make constantly make these finals (so the big three + Murray basically), weren't really around in the best-of-five period aside from Federer and Nadal for a little while, so it's hard to say who has more success because of the change.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
I guess Nadal for Masters since that would have made it even harder on his body considering he reaches most finals anyway. WTF is hard to say as aside from Davydenko in '09, Fed and Djokovic have won all of them since 2006 onwards. Maybe it even benefitted Fed more because he faced Nadal in the 2010 final and maybe Nadal would have played a better match were it best of five against someone he owns mostly in that format.

In terms of masters, I don't think anyone necessarily benefitted from it or anything aside from maybe Rafa on clay, as it only matters in the final and I believe only IW/Miami/MC/Rome/Hamburg were best of five right? The players who make constantly make these finals (so the big three + Murray basically), weren't really around in the best-of-five period aside from Federer and Nadal for a little while, so it's hard to say who has more success because of the change.
Madrid was also bo5. Some 500 tournaments (Basel for ex.) had bo5 finals as well.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Which makes Fed's first titles more impressive as he still dominated 2004-2006 comprehensively with most of the big tournaments having best of 5 finals back then
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic hasn't benefitted from nothing. The guy has changed his style, changed diet, done exactly everything in his power to become number one. And he has succeded.

Even if it was Bo5 format, he would still win. Because that is the way he is, he knows what it takes to win.

Player like nole can be as succesfull in whatever condition you give him, whatever you throw at him. Because he is a real talent, like federer.

People are blind these days.
 
Last edited:

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
I'll speak for MN for a bit…

LMAO


Seriously, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all benefitted from best of 3 formats. Maybe Djokovic the most because he's the most recent dominant player. Had WTF and Masters 1000s stayed best of 5 finals, I doubt these three would be so far ahead of past champions especially the Masters 1000s. And Djokovic may not be a three time year end #1 with just 1 Slam per season.
 
Top