Push to end best-of-five set matches.

[Paul Murphy]

Tennis writer Jon Wertheim says it's time to get rid of best-of-five set matches.

Wertheim: "Enough with best-of-five sets at the Slams, at least until the final. It's both impractical and tone deaf to the times. The sport has never been more grueling, more likely to cause injury (see: Nadal, Rafael). It's never been more important to accommodate television. (Snicker if you like, but it's naive to assert otherwise.) Why are we doing this to already-tired players? Why are we acting so inhospitable to television? These best-of-three matches were fantastic. Perfect amount of time. They captured fans, but still provided spellbinding drama. Even after the long matches, players could return the following day. Not once did I encounter a fan or player who said, "That was a great match but I feel shortchanged. I wish they had played an additional 90 minutes."


I disagree. I love best-of-five in the majors - it differentiates them from the run of the mill tournaments.
They also make fitness, grit and determination possibly less important in a player's make-up.
Finally, there are so many classic best-of-five matches.
Imagine tennis history without a Nadal v Verdasco at the AO for instance and the prospect of classics like that in the future.
No thanks.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

I think it's time to get rid of Jon Wertheim.

 

[Evan77]

I think it's time to get rid of Jon Wertheim.

oh, we get to agree finally, lol.

yeah, silly thing coming from Wertheim. I guess journalists, nowadays, have to write about something, even when it's stupid.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

And best of 3 matches would have been a lot less anti-climactic.

Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer 6-4 6-4 (Wimbledon 2008 F).

On the other hand it could have been used to avoid embarrassing losses.

Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer 6-1 6-3 (Roland Garros 2008 F). 4 games in 2 sets is better than 4 games in 3 sets.

 

[Warmaster]

Tennis writer Jon Wertheim says it's time to get rid of best-of-five set matches.

Wertheim: "Enough with best-of-five sets at the Slams, at least until the final. It's both impractical and tone deaf to the times. The sport has never been more grueling, more likely to cause injury (see: Nadal, Rafael). It's never been more important to accommodate television. (Snicker if you like, but it's naive to assert otherwise.) Why are we doing this to already-tired players? Why are we acting so inhospitable to television? These best-of-three matches were fantastic. Perfect amount of time. They captured fans, but still provided spellbinding drama. Even after the long matches, players could return the following day. Not once did I encounter a fan or player who said, "That was a great match but I feel shortchanged. I wish they had played an additional 90 minutes."
.

Or we could, you know, make the surfaces faster again?

What a silly idea. Best of 5 matches are the best thing in tennis.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Then there's the issue of using a breaker on the fifth - Peter Bodo is all for it:

http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/2012/08/the-racquet-scientist-final-set-tiebreakers.html

My problem with them is having a long match full of ebb and flow decided by what can be a crap shoot with a lucky point here or there deciding the outcome.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I believe it is only a question of time before the best of 5 is abandonned, just because it doesn't suit television.

As a tennis matche last very long, they can't programm a lot of different shows during this time, which mean that they can't attract different kind of viewers during this time. This mean that adverstisers can't reach different kind of viewers and have thus a smaller interest to pay for advertisment, or thus a smiler price for advertisment.

With best of 3, the lasting of the matche is more controlable, which mean easier programming. It will still atract tennis fan, but allow to programm a different show after that will allow to attract different viewers and thus attracts more advertisers.

 

[jaggy]

If they did it would change so much about the slams. Has any other sport ever done anything radical like this? Basketball and the shot clock maybe?

 

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

If best-of-5 set format is banned (or reduced to just the final), that will mean the Nadal-Federer-Djokovic-Murray era will be the last credible era. Every era after this era will be considered inferior. I don't mind, bring on the girly era in 2020.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Better yet, they should play a match comprised entirely of a two point tiebreak (you'd have to win by two still though, so some matches could last 10-12 points, more than enough tennis).

Actually no, how about there is no official match play, and they show viewers the players warming up, have a coin toss to decide who moves on to the next round (sort of like the Euro Cup in '68 ), all up until the finals, where they play best of three coin toss? Or they can play best of three tennis in the final, I'm flexible.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

If best-of-5 set format is banned (or reduced to just the final), that will mean the Nadal-Federer-Djokovic-Murray era will be the last credible era. Every era after this era will be considered inferior. I don't mind, bring on the girly era in 2020.

It might even be considered a different era in official terms, e.g. post-open era. And then slams will be even more of a lottery rather than 5-set battles of skill.

 

[SLD76]

Or we could, you know, make the surfaces faster again?

What a silly idea. Best of 5 matches are the best thing in tennis.

you win the cheeseburger.

 

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

It might even be considered a different era in official terms, e.g. post-open era. And then slams will be even more of a lottery rather than 5-set battles of skill.

That is true, a lot more early exits for the top seeds. And therein lies the worst aspect - weak semi-finals/finals.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

That is true, a lot more early exits for the top seeds. And therein lies the worst aspect - weak semi-finals/finals.

Yep. And I hope they don't make a third set a tiebreak set, as that'd just make the slams lose all their prestige. Maybe if that happens they can just merge the junior and the senior tours together, since both would play best of three.

 

[cork_screw]

I actually think a best of 3 sets is impractical. I would actually wanna see just a tie break until they reach the finals. Then they can play a best of 3.

 

[cknobman]

If they get rid of best of five set matches in grand slams I will stop watching.

Instead of this why not get rid of so many crappy tournaments?
Why not get rid of so many hard courts?
Why not incorporate some more grass courts?
Why not end the season sooner and give the players more off season?
Why not get rid of the 5th set must win by 2 games rule?(at some grand slams)

 

[R.Federer]

hahahahaha that journalist is a joke best of 5 is why majors are so prestigious today, best of 3 is garbage imagine a top player not being up for it in the 1st few sets and it ends up 6-0 6-1 in the slams what a joke for the audiece if that was to happen.the wta is a joke because of scorelines like this

 

[soleil]

suure we can also tell the men to produce estrogen

 

[sureshs]

If a traditional sport like cricket can go from unlimited time to 1 week to 5 days to 1 day to half a day, tennis can and should go to at least a best of 3.

 

[Magnus]

This guy wants to compete with Nadal in "Who can ruin the sport more?". So far Nadal is winning.

 

[tennisaddict]

This is going to happen definitely in the next few years.

In the fast paced world no one has time for 5 setters. if you look at the overall % of matches which went beyond 3 sets , the stats would be telling that this decision is needed.

Cricket has several hundred years of history and now it is moving in the direction of a 4 hour game from a 5 day match.

Television will dictate how the game will be run.

I will remember to bump this thread when this happens.

 

[BeHappy]

Even Jon Wertheim could not believe this. I think he couldn't think of anything to write.

 

[Chillaxer]

Why not less events, a less full calendar for less injuries? That;s far more fair than allowing a guy to wina slam by blasting out best of three set victories.

 

[tennisaddict]

Why not less events, a less full calendar for less injuries? That;s far more fair than allowing a guy to wina slam by blasting out best of three set victories.

What is the purpose of long matches ?

How many players / matches have been won after being 2 sets down ?

 

[Chillaxer]

What is the purpose of long matches ?

How many players / matches have been won after being 2 sets down ?

I don't think that's so much the point, though I'm sure plenty have. That guy, can't recall the name won the Roland Garros final from 2 sets down.
But is a load of 2-1 victories really satisfactory to win a slam? I mean, te fact is it's corporate driven, like all sports, but playing less events would save the body much better than shorter matches. You can see whats happened to the footballers is due to more events not mtach length.

 

[tennisaddict]

Best of 5 really only tests who has physical endurance to win 21+ sets over a course of a tournament.

It truly does not impact result of specific matches. Without getting into stats, one can safely say it is less than 2% of matches that are won after being 2 sets down.

I think tennis can be more entertaining knowing that players dont need to play long matches. It will favor attacking players.

I can see Federer winning multiple slams from here on if slams are made best of 3.

 

[Chillaxer]

Best of 5 really only tests who has physical endurance to win 21+ sets over a course of a tournament.

It truly does not impact result of specific matches. Without getting into stats, one can safely say it is less than 2% of matches that are won after being 2 sets down.

I think tennis can be more entertaining knowing that players dont need to play long matches. It will favor attacking players.

I can see Federer winning multiple slams from here on if slams are made best of 3.

How many are won from 2-1 down though? I don't think 2-1 is a satisfacotry way to win a mens tennis match supposed to be in the most special tournaments.

 

[tennisaddict]

How many are won from 2-1 down though? I don't think 2-1 is a satisfacotry way to win a mens tennis match supposed to be in the most special tournaments.

After being 0-2 sets down or 1-2 down, the matches won would be in the order of 5 % only.

That implies that 2-1 set winner is likely to win the best of 5.

All it does not consider is your endurance match over match for 7 consective games.

I am saying tennis should reward attacking / entertaining brand of play, rather than endurance. It is only possible for a select few (Fed) to play attacking / entertaining brand of tennis for best of 5 sets match in-match out..It is not for everyone.

 

[Chillaxer]

After being 0-2 sets down or 1-2 down, the matches won would be in the order of 5 % only.

There's no way that between two evenish ranked players, that only 5% of 1-2's are won. Maybe across all matches, but it's not good enough for matches with top players. None of the classics would have had as good mtahces in their place with this system.

 

[tennisaddict]

There's no way that between two evenish ranked players, that only 5% of 1-2's are won. Maybe across all matches, but it's not good enough for matches with top players. None of the classics would have had as good mtahces in their place with this system.

But most grand slam matches are not between 'evenish' players.. Only one or two matches out of 64 + 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 127 matches have players come back after being 0-2 or 1-2 down.

2 out of 127 does not warrant so much wastage of time.

 

[Chillaxer]

But most grand slam matches are not between 'evenish' players.. Only one or two matches out of 64 + 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 127 matches have players come back after being 0-2 or 1-2 down.

2 out of 127 does not warrant so much wastage of time.

But there'd be more time if there wasn't such a ludicrous amount of events, which only comes down to money and not the benefit of the sport, that's my point. I didn't find those olympic matches with best of 3, quick one all, and then a marathon 3rd to determine a break, asin Fed-DelPo very satisfactory at all.

 

[tennisaddict]

But there'd be more time if there wasn't such a ludicrous amount of events, which only comes down to money and not the benefit of the sport, that's my point. I didn't find those olympic matches with best of 3, quick one all, and then a marathon 3rd to determine a break, asin Fed-DelPo very satisfactory at all.

The final set tiebreak is yet another separate debate. Other than the finals, it does not make sense IMO.

The number of events is just a function of how popular the game is in the world. If the game is not popular it will not draw the crowd and eventually the event will fade out. So, I am not sure why number of events need to reduce.

 

[mellowyellow]

I actually think a best of 3 sets is impractical. I would actually wanna see just a tie break until they reach the finals. Then they can play a best of 3.

Totally disagree, I would much wrather watch coin tosses than that abortion of a system decide who the better player is.

 

[Mustard]

It should be best of 5 sets at the majors. Tennis will be a lot worse off in terms of credibility if they change it to best of 3 sets at the majors. Of course, the TV companies won't care as long as they are on schedule, but it's not in the interests of the sport one bit.

 

[mellowyellow]

With the tennis channel, why is bradcasting even being mentioned? NBC/ESPN butcher live matches anyway, TC should be the only channel allowed. really, little league... WTF?! EVERY YEAR, AND YOU WOULD THINK THEY COULD GET THE SCHEDULING RIGHT AFTER THE LAST 10, start the da mn games 30mins earlier abd they will be over for the tennis segment!!!

 

[Sid_Vicious]

The mere thought of it makes me sick.

 

[kishnabe]

And best of 3 matches would have been a lot less anti-climactic.

Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer 6-4 6-4 (Wimbledon 2008 F).

On the other hand it could have been used to avoid embarrassing losses.

Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer 6-1 6-3 (Roland Garros 2008 F). 4 games in 2 sets is better than 4 games in 3 sets.

Read the article...Best of 3 till the final!

GS final being best of three....would cause many to not care watching tennis anymore.

Jon Werthiem....never considered him a journalist, talks like he full of himself, has no understanding the historical significance on tennis.

When he talked about Federer at 12 Wimbledon......nasty stuff.

 

[Laurie]

Jon Weirtheim has no power to make decisions so he can say what he wants. Cricket still has five day test matches, it is not as popular as in the past but is still seen by the players and fans as the ultimate test.

Incidentally, I read Jon Wertheim's book "Venus Envy" back in 2006 and regretted it, to this day I have no idea the point he was trying to make.

 

[Paul Murphy]

To me the majors are special - they're special for a whole range of reasons but a big one for me is that they're a serious physical test.
They stand out in a sea of lesser tournaments offering best of three.
They should stay that way.

 

[Paul Murphy]

To me the push fits in with the tendency these days to shorten everything so those with shorter attention spans are catered for.

 

[tennisaddict]

Here is a tweet from Patrick McEnroe last week :

I have to admit watching best 2 of 3 in #Olympics makes me wonder about going that route ALWAYS. Tension is palpable & best players winning

 

[Vish13]

And best of 3 matches would have been a lot less anti-climactic.

Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer 6-4 6-4 (Wimbledon 2008 F).

On the other hand it could have been used to avoid embarrassing losses.

Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer 6-1 6-3 (Roland Garros 2008 F). 4 games in 2 sets is better than 4 games in 3 sets.

What about 6-0, 7-6 in 2006 wimby

 

[Jeo17]

Does anyone think if slams went to best of 3 until the final, more top pros would play in the doubles draw?

 

[sureshs]

To me the push fits in with the tendency these days to shorten everything so those with shorter attention spans are catered for.

Or those who have better things to do with their time

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

What about 6-0, 7-6 in 2006 wimby

One of the few slam encounters that would have resulted in a win for Federer? Yes, 2006 Wimbledon.

 

[RF20Lennon]

LOL Jon Wertheim needs to watch the wimby 2008 final the roland garros 2011 fed djoko semi final and the aussie final this year and then talk about the "spellbounding drama" that best of 3 sets gives

 

[Paul Murphy]

Or those who have better things to do with their time

Nothing better for me than watching a tense five-setter in a major.
How lucky are those who have better things to do.
If that's the case I can't imagine they'd want to spend time on a tennis website either.

 

[mellowyellow]

I push for all threads/post containing "reports" from John Worthlesshymen be locked/banned

 

[000KFACTOR90000]

.................................

 

[BevelDevil]

Compromise: Best of five, but the third set is played as a tie breaker.