Push to end best-of-five set matches.

Some players rely on best of five matches to win on occasion. Mainly players who counterpunch and use their endurance to win.
 
Chillaxer said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be Gaston Gaudio.
 
Chillaxer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe you're referring to Gaston Gaudio, Roland Garros 2004.

14.jpg
 
Just think best of 3 would have resulted in:

Wibledon 2010 Nadal 2nd round losse to Robin Hasse, no title for Nadal.

French open 2011, 1sr round loss to john isner, no title.

I dont think nadal fans would be in favor of this.
 
Last edited:
RF20Lennon said:
LOL Jon Wertheim needs to watch the wimby 2008...
Click to expand...
He wrote a book about it, 'Strokes of Genius'.

His weekly column is pretty good (although way too PC in many cases) - but some of his comments are completely clueless and make him sound like another typical media armchair who can't play sports.

This is a non-problem that doesn't need fixing. I didn't think the Olympics was great of a tournament that it should now be the standard to be measured against. It will be remembered for three things: local guy won, a lot of people slipped on their *sses because the grass wasn't right, and Fed and Del Potro couldn't break serve for a while.
 
West Coast Ace said:
He wrote a book about it, 'Strokes of Genius'.

His weekly column is pretty good (although way too PC in many cases) - but some of his comments are completely clueless and make him sound like another typical media armchair who can't play sports.

This is a non-problem that doesn't need fixing. I didn't think the Olympics was great of a tournament that it should now be the standard to be measured against. It will be remembered for three things: local guy won, a lot of people slipped on their *sses because the grass wasn't right, and Fed and Del Potro couldn't break serve for a while.
Click to expand...
exactly, they only need to iron out the schedule and keep the traditional court speeds in tact. This year is the closest we have come in a long time to low bouncing faster grass. Now the USO needs a little less sand in the topcoat...
 
cknobman said:
Just think best of 3 would have resulted in:

Wibledon 2010 Nadal 2nd round losse to Robin Hasse, no title for Nadal.

French open 2011, 1sr round loss to john isner, no title.

I dont think nadal fans would be in favor of this.
Click to expand...

french open 2009 4th rd straight sets loss to tommy haas - a loss which would have denied the career slam and could be mourned for the rest of his career by his fans.......
 
GS matches, 1992-2012, no retirements/defaults/walkovers

S Pattern Total % Matches
  • 3 WWW 4970 49%
  • 4 LWWW 1219 12%
  • 4 WLWW 994 10%
  • 4 WWLW 970 10%
  • 5 LWWLW 310 3%
  • 5 WLWLW 253 2%
  • 5 WWLLW 334 3%
  • 5 LLWWW* 404 4%
  • 5 WLLWW* 356 4%
  • 5 LWLWW* 320 3%
* matches where eventual winner would lose in best 2/3 format = 11%
 
BrooklynNY said:
Another good comment from this guy

Jon Wertheim ‏@jon_wertheim

RT @zootennis: I understand the reason for the best of 5, but we always lose more than half the crowd if it goes more than 3. #natszoo

https://twitter.com/jon_wertheim/status/234731516633165824

Apparently when the matches get more exciting and become actual matches, people don't want to watch anymore
Click to expand...

Did Wertheim sustain a head injury recently?

That is such a stupid comment.
 
I think the attacks on Wertheim are ridiculous. I'm not necessarily in favor of the policy, but I don't think it's a terrible idea and there is some logic to it.

A big downside, to me, is that going to a best of 3 format up to the finals would allow inferior players to beat superior players more often. While this would be exciting in the sense of producing upsets, it will ultimately diminish the overall sport as the best in the game would be less likely to face off in finals and build lasting legacies and rivalries.
 
Had these Grand Slam matches been best of 3 instead of best of 5, there's no guarantee the first 2 sets would have been the same. The mentality of both players would be completely different.
 
Nicholas Warino said:
I think the attacks on Wertheim are ridiculous. I'm not necessarily in favor of the policy, but I don't think it's a terrible idea and there is some logic to it.

A big downside, to me, is that going to a best of 3 format up to the finals would allow inferior players to beat superior players more often. While this would be exciting in the sense of producing upsets, it will ultimately diminish the overall sport as the best in the game would be less likely to face off in finals and build lasting legacies and rivalries.
Click to expand...

Their is no logic to this at all, the majority of injuries comes from training. Event match scheduling is as big of a problem for the lack of quality in bigger tournies. Fix this first and see what you have. Then analyze the other options after a year of said changes. Here is another idea, give the guys that actually played last weeks tournament on sat/sun the byes, not those who played no tennis. Get rid of this elitist system to make the year less grueling. Do not take away the 5 sets at Majors!! Bring back the 5 sets in finals at masters!! That makes the legitimacy of the 250/500/1000/Majors look like its about the best fort the competitive levels respectively.
 
Although I don't want to end best of five sets, certainly not in the later rounds or finals, truth is, for the average TV viewer or even a huge tennis fan such as my self, the argument can be made that for every great thrilling 5 set epic match (Federer/Nadal Wimbledon final), there is the one that puts you to sleep or at least makes you wish the match would be over already (Roddick/Federer Wimbledon final), or God forbid another one of those Isner borefests at Wimbledon! I think the better solution is fifth set tie breakers, at least in opening rounds. One of the most exciting matches that had huge drama and an epic ending was the McEnroe/Connors semi-final at the '80 USO that MaC won in a fifth set tie breaker. Even best of three matches without the final set tiebreak are horrible most of the time....such as the Tsonga match at the Olympics.
 
Start da Game said:
what a stupid idea.......is he really a tennis journalist?
Click to expand...
Yes. And I am sad to add: American tennis journalist.

The more I think about this the dumber it gets. On the men's side: a set and a break and most of the matches would be over. How's that making the game more popular (if that is his goal)?
 
Jon Wertheim is a clown on this topic. Having been to dozens of longer than 3 set matches at majors that is absolutely wrong.

He clearly is a generalist sports journalist - as evident by his elementary knowledge about tennis.

If he'd said they lose half the crowd when WTA matches go past 1 set I might have agreed.
 
Hops said:
GS matches, 1992-2012, no retirements/defaults/walkovers

S Pattern Total % Matches
  • 3 WWW 4970 49%
  • 4 LWWW 1219 12%
  • 4 WLWW 994 10%
  • 4 WWLW 970 10%
  • 5 LWWLW 310 3%
  • 5 WLWLW 253 2%
  • 5 WWLLW 334 3%
  • 5 LLWWW* 404 4%
  • 5 WLLWW* 356 4%
  • 5 LWLWW* 320 3%
* matches where eventual winner would lose in best 2/3 format = 11%
Click to expand...

What awesome work and cool stats, thanks!
 
Wertheim adresses it again on Nadal's withdrawal from USO.

Okay, here's a line from Monday's Guardian: "There was talk among the tennis hacks about the merits of three-set matches up to the final -- not a bad idea so it's doubtful to be taken up."

The contrasting opinion is the status quo, but I'm happy to engage in a debate. For starters, I'm not sure I agree with the premise. I don't think you can say, "If the match was best-of-three, Federer would have lost to Alejandro Falla or whomever." Maybe he would have played with more urgency. Maybe he would have switched tactics sooner. Who knows?

Best-of-five is too long for everyone -- the fans, the broadcast partners and, above all, the players. The sport has become brutally physical. Just look at the injured list from this week alone: Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Azarenka, Sharapova, Soderling. In any other industry, if the workers were burning out or inuring themselves on the job at an unprecedented levels, the union or the management would look into reducing the shifts and improving conditions. Why should tennis be different?
Click to expand...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20120815/rafael-nadal-mailbag/#ixzz23e0Xh4Ky

I usually agree w/ Wertheim, but think this opinion is misguided. Like others have said, you want players to have less injuries, speed up the courts, get rid of the mickey mouse tourneys, and add in more natural surface tourneys in lieu of random HC events with zero prestige and relevance.
 
JBF#1, I agree there are better ways to shorten matches. 3 out of 5 in majors has to stay. I will say that I did come away from the US Open 2011 and Aussie Open 2012 final matches thinking that the sport can't go on like this. These guys can't have insane 20 shot rallies hitting as hard as they can with poly strings and running at top speeds for five hours and play long term. Something has to give. If not, most players will be peaking at 25.
 
Tennis will be far worse off as a sport if best of 5 sets was abolished. Of course, many of those in favour of its abolition usually have corporate profits in mind, or viewing schedules, and don't care about tennis as a sport in itself.
 
Al Czervik said:
JBF#1, I agree there are better ways to shorten matches. 3 out of 5 in majors has to stay. I will say that I did come away from the US Open 2011 and Aussie Open 2012 final matches thinking that the sport can't go on like this. These guys can't have insane 20 shot rallies hitting as hard as they can with poly strings and running at top speeds for five hours and play long term. Something has to give. If not, most players will be peaking at 25.
Click to expand...

Nadal and Djokovic have a matchup style against each other that usually means gruelling rallies, especially if they are both playing well. It is a matchup situation.
 
You want players to play for longer? Get rid of the ridiculous number of HARDCOURT tournaments on tour, and hugely increase the number of clay and grass tournaments. When this was the case in the past, some players could play into their 40s. This would never happen now, and it's because of the number of hardcourts on tour.
 
Last edited:
R.Federer said:
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
Click to expand...

If a top player isn't "up to it" in the first two sets, then he shouldn't be a top player and deserves to lose 6-0 6-1. The joke is on him, not the audience. Bring on the best of 3:twisted:
 
Mustard said:
Nadal and Djokovic have a matchup style against each other that usually means gruelling rallies, especially if they are both playing well. It is a matchup situation.
Click to expand...

Matchup is part of it but the speed of the courts/balls also should be taken into consideration, along w/ technology. Plus both guys act as if they're allergic to the net and refuse to come in even on short balls, though that also could be due to the fact that it's so easy to hit passing shots now which again, goes back to the change in technology.
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
Plus both guys act as if they're allergic to the net and refuse to come in even on short balls, though that also could be due to the fact that it's so easy to hit passing shots now which again, goes back to the change in technology.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The game changes and evolves, just like everything else. Back in the early 1990s, some people moaned that tennis was "too powerful", yet it's powderpuff stuff compared to today's game.

As I said in my recent post, the number of tournaments on hardcourt are what shorten careers. Just think of it for a moment, the players predominantly play on hardcourts from late July to early April the following year. Change the vast majority of these tournaments to clay, grass and carpet, and players' careers will lengthen considerably.
 
The 4 slams are the most sought after titles in tennis. I've always thought playing 3 of 5 in the slams helped to set them apart from the rest of the season. Is it hard to win 7 best-of-five matches in two weeks? Absolutely...and it should be hard. The men have to really step up to do it.

The women should play best of 5 for the same reason.

Oh....and I am SO sorry if you get bored during the match. :rolleyes:
 
Luminaire said:
The 4 slams are the most sought after titles in tennis. I've always thought playing 3 of 5 in the slams helped to set them apart from the rest of the season. Is it hard to win 7 best-of-five matches in two weeks? Absolutely...and it should be hard. The men have to really step up to do it.

The women should play best of 5 for the same reason.

Oh....and I am SO sorry if you get bored during the match. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Good first post :)
 
Two observations:

1. The U.S. Open utilized best-of-three matches for the first three rounds of the men's singles in 1975, 1976, and 1978, and for the first four rounds in 1977. The tournament remained popular at the time, and I don't believe that the titles won in those four years are regarded today as of reduced value.

In any event, the USO at least has demonstrated that an all-or-nothing approach to match length in slams is not required.

2. Table tennis switched from 21-point games to 11-point games around the turn of the millennium. One of the objectives was to make the sport more TV-friendly. The result of the change has been a significant reduction in typical match length, because playing the best of five games to 21 takes much longer than playing the best of seven games to 11. The change may or may not have been successful, but it does illustrate that major structural reforms in game play can be achieved.
 
Murray's take on it:

"I like the best of five format in the slams, that extra mental effort and physical effort you see the rewards that you put in off the court ," Murray said. "When you play a best of three set match, some of the matches [in the Masters Series] are like 50 minutes, an hour and 10 minutes. You need to be very quick and agile, but you don't necessarily have to have great endurance. I think that is one of the added benefits of the best-of five set matches. You get to see that from the players, and you get to see how much work they put in in the gym, as well."
 
Well said, Andy Murray. The majors are that extra bit epic because it's best of 5 sets. And that's how it should be.
 
Also, best of 5 is basically what separated slams from the masters, it's what makes it so hard to win. It takes much more physical and mental strength to win. Imagine if they changed it to 3 sets. What would the difference be from the masters? Two extra matches against low ranked players? A five set final? IMO the slams would lose a lot of their prestige.
 
Best-of-5 cannot be the only thing that distinguishes the slams from lesser events. If that were true, then the slams wouldn't be special in women's tennis. Yet, arguably, slams are more important for women than men (because I don't think people watch much WTA outside of the slams).

The points, the competition, the media exposure, the money and the history lend prestige to the slams, as well.
 
Agree. As I have stated before, time to reduce to 2 out of 3 sets. This will emphasize skill more, rather than endurance. And helps the tour by reducing injury time. It helped squash (they still play 3/5....but the # of points per game has been reduced).
Tennis could adjust this way.....just shorten each set to 5 games.
 
Last edited:
But who's to say that tennis should be a sport of endurance? I think most people would agree that a tennis player needs a lot more endurance to win a five-setter today than one did in, say, 1980. The nature of the game has dramatically changed since then (with the slower courts/fitter players/strings. So why stick to the same game time-consuming, injury-inducing format?

I will never watch another Djokovic/Nadal potentially five-set match, because it's as grueling to watch as it is to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JWilster
Five Best Matches of 2005
Replies
20
Views
3K
VictorS.
V
Hitman
Only Medvedev & Alcaraz from the younger players have won a best of five final
Replies
1
Views
453
StrongRule
S
A
Women should play best of five sets from fourth round to the finals only at Wimbledon
Replies
15
Views
2K
Fedinkum
Fedinkum
Chicharito
  • Poll Poll
Time to reduce the 1st week of slams to Best of 3?
2
Replies
88
Views
4K
Big_Dangerous
Big_Dangerous
A
Davydenko: Men should play best-of-3 matches
Replies
36
Views
6K
fps
F
Back
Top