Only Medvedev & Alcaraz from the younger players have won a best of five final

[Hitman]

People often talk about that Masters losing best of five final doesn't give the younger players too much experience playing these kinds of matches, but it actually goes deeper than that. This is from Vienna 2003, Federer playing a best of five against Moya in a 500 series event. It's not even a masters event, it's a 500. These type of matches, playing finals that are best of five, while it does make winning smaller events that much more challenging, it gives players the exposure of playing best of five finals outside of slams that can then help them in the slams.

The tour being very long and the conscious need to ensure athletes don't overplay and injure themselves, or pull out of back to back events due to exhaustion is in a way a double edged sword. I mean Nadal played three back to back best of five finals heading into RG 2005 where he then won his first slam. Going the distance with peak Federer in Miami, then having a classic with Coria in Rome primed him mentally and physically to win the title and then dominate from there on out.

Best of finals in non-slam matches is a way of grooming future slam champions, giving them that experience more often than not. I mean Rune struggles in these best of five conditions, had he played a few such as in Paris masters final, Monte Carlo and Rome finals, that would go a long way to helping him get over that hurdle. The same is true for a few others. I do think ATP needs to think about this. I mean, why not make Queens and Halle best of five.

 

[StrongRule]

The sad truth is, if masters finals would be BO5 format, the current young players would be dead. None of them would survive anything close to Rome 2005 or 2006 finals, not even half of those.