Novak Djokovic Disagrees With Roger Federer's 5-Set Rule Proposal

We can never have the Slams BO3 because it will make all the future Slams won invalid. What if someone won 13 Slams in BO3? Then are we going to say those Slams are equal to Djokovic's 13 in BO5? They won't be. It has been BO5 for over a century, with decade upon decade and it has to stay that way to keep the balance at the Slam level so I disagree with Djokovic. I don't agree with Federer either though. They should not bring BO5 back to Masters or 500 level. The tour is just too grueling and too physical, and the fact that there are no BO5 finals at the Masters level has decreased injuries and wear and tear on the players. Now having it at the WTF final is a good option but they should keep Masters like they are now.
 
I'd like more best of 5 masters finals, but not sure the players can handle it. Certainly keep slams best of 5!
 
NoleFam said:
We can never have the Slams BO3 because it will make all the future Slams won invalid. What if someone won 13 Slams in BO3? Then are we going to say those Slams are equal to Djokovic's 13 in BO5? They won't be. It has been BO5 for over a century, with decade upon decade and it has to stay that way to keep the balance at the Slam level so I disagree with Djokovic. I don't agree with Federer either though. They should not bring BO5 back to Masters or 500 level. The tour is just too grueling and too physical, and the fact that there are no BO5 finals at the Masters level has decreased injuries and wear and tear on the players. Now having it at the WTF final is a good option but they should keep Masters like they are now.
Click to expand...
Good point!

It's also too much injuries already.
 
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
Think maybe best of 7 is what the viewers want.
Click to expand...
@TheGhostOfAgassi
If these two players squared off, best of seven would be heavenly (look how young Lord Gulbis looks).
_FogniniGulbis.jpg
 
I could forgive when he yelled at the ball kids, I could accept when he told the crowds to lick his johnson, but THIS, this is a step too far. Can his fans even defend this crap?

Federer would have liked to play some of those US/Australian Open matches against him the last couple of years over best of 3 I bet.
 
just change the scoring system. Best of 5, first to 4 games per set, win by 2, tiebreak at 4-4. No ad scoring and no let chords on serves.

Would make things more exciting as players would focus early on in sets instead of cruising. Would also allow for more opportunity to come back from losing your serve. It would also make the length of tennis matches more predictable within a narrower range.
 
Topspin Slice said:
I’m with Federer on this one. One of my pet hates is trying to change things because of ‘millennials’. Wouldn’t the world be a lot better if we just taught young people not to spend their lives on attention-span reducing activities like social media, tinder, gaming etc. rather than try and change everything to suit their bad habit?
Click to expand...
I agree there. Cow-towing to one demographic is pointless and unfair, especially since Novak's assumption is just an opinion, not a fact. Best-of-3 slams would utterly ruin men's tennis, I wouldn't even watch it anymore. It'd be like removing the forehand from tennis.
 
Devilito said:
just change the scoring system. Best of 5, first to 4 games per set, win by 2, tiebreak at 4-4. No ad scoring and no let chords on serves.

Would make things more exciting as players would focus early on in sets instead of cruising. Would also allow for more opportunity to come back from losing your serve. It would also make the length of tennis matches more predictable within a narrower range.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. 4-game sets instead of 6 would make things much more exciting and less strenuous, but I would remove the second serve. By having just one serve the serve would not be as over-dominant as it has been in recent decades plus the game would move quicker and shorter matches. Nobody gets another chance at a volley or backhand, so why a second chance for the serve?
 
Mr Feeny said:
I think you can keep it at 5 sets and speed the surfaces up. We never used to have this problem of 6 hour matches.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I've seen the 90s, and it was a boring decade. Ace-machines and short points. It was horrible and tennis was losing interest as a result. Finally by slowing down surfaces tennis became great again. You can make a surface as fast as ice, and Federer would win 500 more slams, but so would Isner and Anderson, and you'd be bored.
 
Sentinel said:
Fed was only talking about the FINAL guys, not each and every match.
Most of the objects here by Roddick and others have to do with earlier matches going to five.

If the final is five sets, you will obviously plan for it (as a spectator).

That said I am not sure how most players will handle it, considering they are playing matches daily with no rest. For example, Tsitsipas was finished by the final at Canada. Not sure how he could have handled a five setter.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to implement for back to back events like Toronto-Cincy. The schedule will have to allow for a week's break between these tournaments if it's ever to come about.

Sentinel said:
The last B05 final I recall watching was at the WTF, Fed vs Ferrer and it was quite boring. 3,3 and 3 if i remember.
Click to expand...

That was at 2007 Shanghai. The score was 2,3 and 2 for Federer. It was the last time the WTF final was played in Bo5 sets.

Did you not watch any of the last 3 Olympic finals? ;)
 
Devilito said:
just change the scoring system. Best of 5, first to 4 games per set, win by 2, tiebreak at 4-4. No ad scoring and no let chords on serves.

Would make things more exciting as players would focus early on in sets instead of cruising. Would also allow for more opportunity to come back from losing your serve. It would also make the length of tennis matches more predictable within a narrower range.
Click to expand...
UnderratedSlam said:
Absolutely. 4-game sets instead of 6 would make things much more exciting and less strenuous, but I would remove the second serve. By having just one serve the serve would not be as over-dominant as it has been in recent decades plus the game would move quicker and shorter matches. Nobody gets another chance at a volley or backhand, so why a second chance for the serve?
Click to expand...
This could make the matches more interesting for the viewers too.

@Meles
 
UnderratedSlam said:
Trust me, I've seen the 90s, and it was a boring decade. Ace-machines and short points. It was horrible and tennis was losing interest as a result. Finally by slowing down surfaces tennis became great again. You can make a surface as fast as ice, and Federer would win 500 more slams, but so would Isner and Anderson, and you'd be bored.
Click to expand...
That's what clay season is for.
 
Easy solution. Reduce the first two rounds of grand slams to BO3 and increase M1000 finals to BO5.

That’s a huge decrease in total Tennis played, but it’s only shortening the matches spectators care less about.

9 finals increased vs ... 4 x (64 + 32) = 384 matches reduced in length. Am I calculating this right!?
 
UnderratedSlam said:
Trust me, I've seen the 90s, and it was a boring decade. Ace-machines and short points. It was horrible and tennis was losing interest as a result. Finally by slowing down surfaces tennis became great again. You can make a surface as fast as ice, and Federer would win 500 more slams, but so would Isner and Anderson, and you'd be bored.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. I don't share that view. And there's Defintely a difference between having a myriad of different options, with fast, medium, and slow slams, and the current situations in which we don't have a single fast slam.
 
I think GS should definitely be BO5, but yet I think that other tournaments probably shouldn't, or what I really think, is that have all Olympic Games matches at BO5, all the Davis Cup, apart from if a country is leading 3-0, and all the Grand Slams, nothing else, (imo). Like I heard someone on the forum say before, tournaments should be either BO5 or BO3, not both depending whether it is the final or not.

Also Djokovic playing style is way more difficult, because he dosen't have his serve as a big of a weapon, which Federer does. And I believe Djokovic play much longer rallies, and much longer sets, match time, than Federer does. So Djokovic is right, in this case I'd say, although he is wrong about GS (imo)
 
Mr Feeny said:
That's your opinion. I don't share that view. And there's Defintely a difference between having a myriad of different options, with fast, medium, and slow slams, and the current situations in which we don't have a single fast slam.
Click to expand...
Players still needed a ground game in the 90's to win slams or Ivanisevic would've been GOAT instead of Pete.
 
Mr Feeny said:
That's your opinion. I don't share that view. And there's Defintely a difference between having a myriad of different options, with fast, medium, and slow slams, and the current situations in which we don't have a single fast slam.
Click to expand...
Wimbledon is still fast enough.

Besides, if you want us to go back to great speed variety then there will be MUCH less consistency. Stuff like the Big 4 will be over and done with and will never happen again. It is speed homogenization in the 00s that lead to Federer's dominance in the first place. And then Nadal's, then Novak's. With wildly different surface changes favourites will be dropping like flies early in tournaments.

Besides, why would you want ultra-fast surfaces? Already now we have too many ace-machines that are over 6 foot 3. If we speed things up, the ATP will start looking like the NBA. That is a fact, not really an opinion, just logic.
 
Djokovic will be crushed once he hears he's a Millenial! Though the lack of attention span they supposedly have would explain why he favors the BO3 format.
 
True Fanerer said:
Players still needed a ground game in the 90's to win slams or Ivanisevic would've been GOAT instead of Pete.
Click to expand...
Ivanisevic was the "mental midget" as McEnroe called him. With a head like Courier or Lendl he could have dominated. He tanked tons of matches and that's not how anyone becomes "GOAT". Baseliners only had a real chance if they played on clay, which is where Pete struggled as clay exposed his deficiencies, or if like Agassi they had a huge return. Yet despite Agassi REGULARLY outplaying Pete from the baseline, Andre still usually lost to him. Because the surfaces gave big servers way too big an advantage.

In fact, I'd suggest you watch the Wimbledon finale of 1994. Let me know how you liked it. Nearly all the rallies were 3 shots or less.
 
As the embodiment of real tennis, President Prime Minister King Queen Supreme Leader God Emperor Sovereign Emir Prince Regent Yang di-Pertuan and most of all God Roger Federer shall be heard over Novak
 
UnderratedSlam said:
Ivanisevic was the "mental midget" as McEnroe called him. With a head like Courier or Lendl he could have dominated. He tanked tons of matches and that's not how anyone becomes "GOAT". Baseliners only had a real chance if they played on clay, which is where Pete struggled as clay exposed his deficiencies, or if like Agassi they had a huge return. Yet despite Agassi REGULARLY outplaying Pete from the baseline, Andre still usually lost to him. Because the surfaces gave big servers way too big an advantage.

In fact, I'd suggest you watch the Wimbledon finale of 1994. Let me know how you liked it. Nearly all the rallies were 3 shots or less.
Click to expand...
Ivanisevic didn't have a backhand. I think my backhand might be better than his lol. You're obviously not a Federer fan so I will save my time and yours because you most likely prefer five hour ping pong matches between guys that can't or won't hit winners.
 
True Fanerer said:
That's what clay season is for.
Click to expand...
Most of the season is non-clay, as you know.

The important thing here is that we shouldn't support rule changes or any other changes according to how well our favourite players would do. For example, Fed fans often want faster surfaces and balls, Nadal fans more clay and slower balls. That's the wrong approach. Tennis as a whole must profit, not individual players whom we root for. If we can take away our player biases out of the equation then our arguments will make more sense.
 
True Fanerer said:
Ivanisevic didn't have a backhand. I think my backhand might be better than his lol. You're obviously not a Federer fan so I will save my time and yours because you most likely prefer five hour ping pong matches between guys that can't or won't hit winners.
Click to expand...
Federer isn't an ace-machine. Besides, his style varies from match to match, event to event, surface to surface. He doesn't attack all the time. Who doesn't like watching Federer play? You simply assumed that every RF fan has to root for ultra-fast surfaces. I am a tennis fan first-and-foremost, I am not tied to any one player with an umbilical cord. I don't advocate ultra-slow, and I definitely know how awful ultra-fast has been for men's tennis in the 90s.

Ivanisevic had a great backhand, he just didn't try very hard to win half the time. He was known as the tanker of his generation, sort of like a milder version of Kyrgios.

If your backhand is better than Goran's, I'd suggest you try out as a pro. Just promise not to tank against RF because you're a fan!
 
UnderratedSlam said:
Federer isn't an ace-machine. Besides, his style varies from match to match, event to event, surface to surface. He doesn't attack all the time. Who doesn't like watching Federer play? You simply assumed that every RF fan has to root for ultra-fast surfaces. I am a tennis fan first-and-foremost, I am not tied to any one player with an umbilical cord. I don't advocate ultra-slow, and I definitely know how awful ultra-fast has been for men's tennis in the 90s.

Ivanisevic had a great backhand, he just didn't try very hard to win half the time. He was known as the tanker of his generation, sort of like a milder version of Kyrgios.

If your backhand is better than Goran's, I'd suggest you try out as a pro. Just promise not to tank against RF because you're a fan!
Click to expand...
LOL you obviously don't know what you're talking about because Ivanisevic had one of the worst backhands EVER!

It is known.
 
True Fanerer said:
LOL you obviously don't know what you're talking about because Ivanisevic had one of the worst backhands EVER!

It is known.
Click to expand...
Yet, despite this awful BH (let's just presume you're right for the sake of argument), and despite being a tanker and tactically inept, he managed to reach 4 Wimby finales, just because he served great. Wouldn't that refute your push for faster courts? I mean, if much faster speeds favour players with awful groundstrokes, why would you advocate that change?

I guess we agree after all.
 
mbm0912 said:
Right...the guy that skips entire seasons and cherry picks his tournaments wants more five setters. Makes sense...
Click to expand...
I guess maybe he wants his main competitors to get injured even more often than they already are. As soon as Rafa or Novak got injured he was there to reap the benefits. He is quite sly.

On the other hand, Djokovic suggesting best of 3 is nonsense. It would make slams EASIER to win than M1000s because there'd be a free day between any two matches. Completely ridiculous. Both are advocating extremes, but the truth or ideal solution is nearly always a moderate one.
 
People can argue however they want ultimately the market will decide and guess what, it has already decided.

Tennis is a business and Djokovic has everything right. People want things faster. People want experiences that are shorter and more intense which they can multiply to infinity than long excruciating routines. That's why Zara or Primark are crushing and Amazon is worth nearly a 1000 billion.

Technology has changed people's habits and there's nothing tennis can do against that. The writing is on the wall for 5 set matches and it will be bound to disappear just like Harley Davidson will not be making there loud sounding bikes anymore in profit for electric ones -; despite having a very very loyal base.

The problem with 5 set matches as Murray said perfectly no one has time to stay 5 or 6 hours watching a full single match. Assuming you have a social life and considering how much easier it is to move around, do stuffs, travel... this is a complete waste of time when you can be doing many other things with real people.

Blaming millennials or generation z is not going to change anything about that. Life moves on and you cannot keep doing the same things you were doing the 80's.

People watch less TV and are more computer/smartphone oriented and its a different medium. On a smartphone people will do many different things in a very short lapses of time. How do you market 5 set matches on stories that last less than a minute where basically a good share of the audience is?

The market always tells the truth and if people do not want something you either adapt to stay in business or do not change anything and die/shrink.
 
I'm with Fed. I find best of three a bit of an anti-climax. You can pay a lot of money for a WTF final and it's over so quickly. Sure, tie-break in 5th set.
 
Topspin Slice said:
I’m with Federer on this one. One of my pet hates is trying to change things because of ‘millennials’. Wouldn’t the world be a lot better if we just taught young people not to spend their lives on attention-span reducing activities like social media, tinder, gaming etc. rather than try and change everything to suit their bad habit?
Click to expand...

Attention span reducing activities do not come from that alone. Foodora, Uber, Revolut, Airbnb or Amazon when you can get stuffs within 15 minutes of ordering -; receive payments instantaneously without additional fees or get a cheap ride within 5 minutes has modeled people's habits to want things faster and move to something else.

Staying 30 minutes focused on trying to flag a Taxi or forced to stay home for an unsure amount of time because you do not know when you are going to get delivered is not what I call being productive.

This has NOTHING to do with teaching people anything. Technology has become better and because of improved performances, it has enabled people to do things faster. Performance makes it obvious that certain tasks can be done faster therefore it is accepted and required that things be done faster.
 
Plamen1234 said:
Wimbledon champion Novak Djokovic does not agree with Roger Federer's suggestion that more events outside the Grand Slams should consist of five-set matches as the debate continues to heat up.

Both Djokovic and Federer are competing in the Cincinnati Masters and when the latter was asked what rule he would change in tennis following his win over Peter Gojowczyk on Tuesday, he suggested more best-of-five competition, particularly in the finals of ATP Tour events.

"I would add more best of five sets matches in finals," Federer said, as per the Express. "In Masters 1000 we have more opportunities to have five-set matches, especially at the World Finals. … On the ATP Tour we don’t have any five-set matches. I know it’s for player protection, but I feel it’s an opportunity wasted."

As of now, five-set matches only take part in the four Grand Slams, and are generally seen as a more accurate representation of a player's ability and endurance, which Federer seems to agree with.

But Djokovic feels otherwise and even believes Grand Slam events should be limited to just three sets. His reasoning, however, is based on the long term interest of the sport.

"I actually heard him [Federer] speak about it, he said best of five he would make it," Djokovic said after his win over Adrian Mannarino on Wednesday. "I am against that. I would have even Grand Slams best of three."

"This new generation of tennis fans and Millennials, they don’t have a great attention span and they want things to happen very quickly. So for the players as well and to attract more people and viewers of a younger audience we have to keep tennis matches dynamic and shorter."

The debate about five-set matches comes in the midst of the Wimbledon semifinals last month where Djokovic's win over Rafael Nadal and Kevin Anderson's win over John Isner lasted nearly a combined 12 hours.

And former No. 1 Andy Murray agreed with Djokovic from a spectator's standpoint, even if he personally enjoys playing five-set matches himself.

The Briton was a commentator for the Wimbledon quarterfinal match between Nadal and Juan Martin del Potro, which lasted four hours and 48 minutes as he reflected on the viewing experience.

"It was interesting watching it from a different perspective, and I picked things up like, 'Oh my god, this match is incredibly long'," Murray told the New York Times earlier this week. "As a player, I really like best-of-five. It's been good to me. I feel like it rewards the training and everything you put into that."

"But then, when I sat and watched the match in the commentary booth, it was an amazing match, it was a brilliant match, but it was really, really long to sit there as a spectator for the first time. That evening I had a meeting planned and I missed my dinner. People who are sitting there during the week watching that, I don't think you can plan to do that. A lot of people are going to be getting up and leaving the matches and not actually watching the whole thing. The people in the stadium loved it, but I don't think it - as well, what happened in the semifinals - is good for tennis."

https://www.ibtimes.com/novak-djokovic-disagrees-roger-federers-5-set-rule-proposal-2709021
Click to expand...
Simple solution it to go to Milan rules or a slightly longer variation (play tiebreakers at 4 all) and got to best of five sets. That would probably be superior to the current three set format (as in best player more likely to win). A whole lot more exciting. Once that's in place maybe the slams might have ideas. A step in the right direction would be to play tiebreakers at 5 all. Not a big change since set scores would be 6-4 and 6-5 in place of 7-5 and 7-6.

The traditional format is best of five with no breakers for any of the sets. People against change now have already supported change from the original format of the game. Going back to best of five for all tennis matches with the other rules changes is actually closer to the original game than the current three set format.o_O
 
Mainad said:
It's impossible to implement for back to back events like Toronto-Cincy. The schedule will have to allow for a week's break between these tournaments if it's ever to come about.



That was at 2007 Shanghai. The score was 2,3 and 2 for Federer. It was the last time the WTF final was played in Bo5 sets.

Did you not watch any of the last 3 Olympic finals? ;)
Click to expand...
oh yeah i did. Can I forget the one in which Murray beat Fed ?
Eye tink nawt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Are Nadal and is Djokovic's Impressive 5 Set Record inflated?
Replies
33
Views
2K
Noleberic123
Noleberic123
P
Masters Series, 5-set finals ever coming back?
Replies
31
Views
2K
Bloodshed
Bloodshed
Backspin1183
Federer Wants More 5 Set Matches On ATP Tour
2 3
Replies
133
Views
9K
90's Clay
90's Clay
M
Federer - 5 Set Grand Slam finals - now 50%
Replies
9
Views
1K
BGod
BGod
M
Rivalries - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray
Replies
0
Views
614
McEnroeisanartist
M
Back
Top