Masters Finals - Best of 5. Yes or No??

Finals of Masters?

  • Best of 3

    Votes: 50 47.2%
  • Best of 5

    Votes: 56 52.8%

  • Total voters
    106

lud

Hall of Fame
What's your opinion guys?

Only Final matches..

I' m always with Best of 5.

I know it's exhausting for body,it's much more competitive. In all Masters.
 

kabob

Hall of Fame
Let's not return to that garbage. I like that the Masters have high concentrations of quality tennis over 2 out of 3 sets. Grand Slam matches are often marred by grindfests where the winner wins by attrition. The entire reason 5-set finals were dropped 10 years ago was because the winner and runner up would often drop out of the following tournament citing fatigue.
 

augustobt

Legend
The entire reason 5-set finals were dropped 10 years ago was because the winner and runner up would often drop out of the following tournament citing fatigue.
That's because the calendar is flawed. They switched the final to a BO3 and guess what? The calendar is still bad yet the appeal of the Masters is gone. Masters without BO5 finals are just an ATP500 played in a larger stadium with an increased prize money in the end.
 
Last edited:

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
That's because the calendar is flawed. The calendar is still bad yet the appeal of the Masters is gone. Masters without BO5 finals are just an ATP500 played in a larger stadium with an increased prize money in the end.
Exactly. They have nothing in February yet have IW-Miami right next to each other. Then they have Canada-Cincinatti in consecutive weeks too. Needs a week break minimum between these events.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Best of 3 only because they won't change the calendar.

My Tennis TV subscription is looking quite the investment though, because they make the pros play so much all year round.
 

ByakuFubuki

Semi-Pro
Hadn't something like this already been asked recently?

By the way I'm pretty conflicted on this topic. On one hand the "Best-Of-Three Rounds + Best-Of-Five Final" Format gave Masters some sort of special vibe and differentiated them from any other category, which I totally like, bot on the other hand there are only so many prolonged matches I really enjoyed, since I'm more fond of technical quality than of physical fight and the former obviously tends to fade away with Play Time.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
I enjoyed the 5 set Finals in events like Gstaad, Basel, Vienna, etc, as well as the Masters finals. Epics like when Goran defeated Rusedski in the 1997 Vienna final, coming from 2 sets down. So many twists and turns, you get can get more emotionally involved in a epic 5 setter. Funnily enough, Rusedski won Vienna two years later also coming from 2 sets down.

But I'm biased and selfish though. I can see where the players are coming from, the complaints of fatigue, etc.
 
It's fine as it is. BO3 produces great matches as well.

Anyway, with all the whining how 90% of matches today are boring grindfests, I don't know why would people want more BO5.
 

paulfisher

New User
The entire tournament up to the final is best of three. Who made it to the final is based on best of three matches. To suddenly change to best of five changes the dynamics of the players who got there. The entire tournament from start to finish should be based on the same format.
 

tenisdecente

Hall of Fame
It is a complicated matter really, since tennis today is boring bar some matches. On the other hand, as someone already said, Masters are kinda ATP 500, so what is the big deal with Masters? Money and attendance?
WTF finals should be best of 5 absolutely, then we can talk. And also, speeding up surfaces will help a lot to avoid boring grindfests. Courts like Miami are so slow that they are no different from clay. A lot of thingsd can be done before taking in consideration putting Masters finals to 5 sets again
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
That's because the calendar is flawed. They switched the final to a BO3 and guess what? The calendar is still bad yet the appeal of the Masters is gone. Masters without BO5 finals are just an ATP500 played in a larger stadium with an increased prize money in the end.
So does that apply to the WTF as well? ;)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I do think the finals of all the big events ie.Slams, WTF and Masters should be played in best of 5 format. Currently, only the Slams continue to do that.

However, I agree with the concerns about the calendar. Playing back to back Masters like IW and Miami, Madrid and Rome, Canada and Cincinnati makes playing best of 5 finals problematic for the players and was the reason why the format was abandoned in the first place. So I think the ATP first needs to modify the calendar before re-introducing best of 5 for all the Masters finals.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
There's a solution here. I feel like masters aren't earned as much these days, that the win could come from someone redlining for 45 minutes and then cruising to the win on a break of serve. It should be more of a challenge than that.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

pennc94

Professional
Let's not return to that garbage. I like that the Masters have high concentrations of quality tennis over 2 out of 3 sets. Grand Slam matches are often marred by grindfests where the winner wins by attrition. The entire reason 5-set finals were dropped 10 years ago was because the winner and runner up would often drop out of the following tournament citing fatigue.
Which is one of the reasons the 1000s are dominated by the top guys only.

Today's 1000s totals cannot be compared to prior era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

SinjinCooper

Hall of Fame
10 game pro sets through the quarters, best of three for semis and final.

Let's treat these things like the exhibitions they are, get some tennis back on TV stations that don't want to risk marathon coverage that bores the audience away, and allow the players more rest so they're playing their best at the slams -- which, as we all know, are the only tournaments that matter anyway.
 

kabob

Hall of Fame
Which is one of the reasons the 1000s are dominated by the top guys only.

Today's 1000s totals cannot be compared to prior era.
Not true, statistically veteran players do better than younger ones in best of 5. It's why you see the Grand Slams skew older. A young player might blaze early but more sets gives a veteran time to figure out how to win. Never mind that veterans know better how to train and prepare for best of 5.
 
Last edited:

kabob

Hall of Fame
If the finals had kept being best of 5, I doubt we would have seen so many old players in the top 10.
You'd actually see more. It takes time to develop the fitness, strength, tactics and mental fortitude to tough out long matches. That's how Old Man Fed played the big points smarter to beat a redlining Kyrgios despite having less pace on all his shots.
 

augustobt

Legend
So does that apply to the WTF as well? ;)
In a certain but lesser degree, yes. That switch made even less sense once the WTF is the last event of the calendar (apart from DC Final) and after that rain in Houston is (and will be) 100% of the time played indoors. But yet the Master's Cup won't never lose the appeal of hardest tournament to win apart form the majors because you still have to beat 5 top 8 players to win the title.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
In a certain but lesser degree, yes. That switch made even less sense once the WTF is the last event of the calendar (apart from DC Final) and after that rain in Houston is (and will be) 100% of the time played indoors. But yet the Master's Cup won't never lose the appeal of hardest tournament to win apart form the majors because you still have to beat 5 top 8 players to win the title.
Given that the Olympic final is now the only other tennis final played in best of 5 format, but allowing for its weaker draw, do you think that puts it on at least a par with the WTF?
 

guitarra

Professional
The calendar is already overloaded especially for top guys who reach masters finals, why exhaust them even more?
 

augustobt

Legend
Given that the Olympic final is now the only other tennis final played in best of 5 format, but allowing for its weaker draw, do you think that puts it on at least a par with the WTF?
Not really. Even with the BO5 Final it lacks the depth of field of the WTF. I'd rank them in between the WTF and a regular masters 1000.
 
1

1HBH-DownTheLine

Guest
Just need to be left as is. Best of 3 in Masters, 500 and 250. Best of 5 at slams.
 

timnz

Legend
Given that the Olympic final is now the only other tennis final played in best of 5 format, but allowing for its weaker draw, do you think that puts it on at least a par with the WTF?
Best of 5 doesn't make up for the difference in depth eg Nadal beat 1 top 8 player to win the 2008 Olympics whereas the WTF winner has to beat 4 or 5 top 8 players to win.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
BO 3 is more than sufficient .

I would perhaps make 2 masters each on every surface and have them precede the major.

No need for any master after the USO
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Make them all Pro Sets (8 game set) and more quality tournaments. Finals can be best of 3.
 
1

1HBH-DownTheLine

Guest
BO 3 is more than sufficient .

I would perhaps make 2 masters each on every surface and have them precede the major.

No need for any master after the USO
I like that idea. Get rid of 1 masters for a total of 8. Calendar would have to be re-adjusted but i like the idea of this:

2 hard masters before AO
2 clay masters before FO
2 grass masters before Wimby
2 hard masters before USO

then everything after USO could just be a mix up for 250 and several 500 events before the world tour final.
 

hklbkup

Rookie
It does not make sense finding best of 3 players and let them fight in a 5 set match. Different requirement (tactics, physical ability, metal stamina, etc.) IMO.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
It's a big reason I don't value Masters 1000's in legacy. Guys like Pete and Lendl openly said in their playing primes that they didn't care about them because they were 3/5 then. Had they been 2/3, Lendl would have won 40 of them and Pete probably 30. Djoker, Nadal and Fed have all feasted on them since they're 2/3.

No point in going back to the old format. Nadal and Djoker bothj take 30 seconds between points. Who wants to watch a 5 hour Masters 1000 match!??
 

PeteD

Legend
Best of 3 only because they won't change the calendar.

My Tennis TV subscription is looking quite the investment though, because they make the pros play so much all year round.
Do you think there is any connection?
 

PeteD

Legend
bo5 for some of them, at least.
(IW, miami, bercy... ?)

but there's another tournament where it's more urgent to come back to a bo5 final... the WTF !
Looks like 2005 was the last time the WTF was won in 5 -- Nalbandian def. Federer 6–7(4–7), 6–7(11–13), 6–2, 6–1, 7–6(7–3). Was that the last year it was BO5?
 

tenisdecente

Hall of Fame
I like that idea. Get rid of 1 masters for a total of 8. Calendar would have to be re-adjusted but i like the idea of this:

2 hard masters before AO
2 clay masters before FO
2 grass masters before Wimby
2 hard masters before USO

then everything after USO could just be a mix up for 250 and several 500 events before the world tour final.
Not sure, I would probably add 2 indoor Masters as warm up for WTF
 
Top