Shorten men's matches, says former Player Council head

Aussie Darcy said:
Butorac is 35 years old, a simple read of the first 2 lines would've told you that. Can you not read?
Clearly not about Gen Y or the millennials. But nice try though by attempting to blame young people, something "old" people seem to be very good at.
Click to expand...

Aussie...you need to chill, crack open a cold one and relax old boy. Clearly you did not read the very beginning. (you know..the very first sentence that's in nice, bold, black font..) Can YOU not read?
Butorac is trying to speed up the game by trying to ENGAGE a YOUNGER crowd and, by doing so, trying to generate a new fanbase for YOUNGER people. Why? Because he simply thinks the sport is too long and kids, and maybe people such as yourself, don't want to watch a tennis match that exceeds..I don't know, 2 hours? It boils down to attention spans, blinking lights, gimmicks, new shiny things, and what he thinks is best for the overall game and engaging new, YOUNGER viewers, which apparently you're part of...which is totally cool, brah.
 
mr.torrence said:
Aussie...you need to chill, crack open a cold one and relax old boy. Clearly you did not read the very beginning. (you know..the very first sentence that's in nice, bold, black font..) Can YOU not read?
Butorac is trying to speed up the game by trying to ENGAGE a YOUNGER crowd and, by doing so, trying to generate a new fanbase for YOUNGER people. Why? Because he simply thinks the sport is too long and kids, and maybe people such as yourself, don't want to watch a tennis match that exceeds..I don't know, 2 hours? It boils down to attention spans, blinking lights, gimmicks, new shiny things, and what he thinks is best for the overall game and engaging new, YOUNGER viewers, which apparently you're part of...which is totally cool, brah.
Click to expand...

Without getting into the merits of BO3 vs BO5, if I were making decisions for the council , I will try to make decisions that appeal to the younger crowd rather than the crowd ready to kick the bucket, because the younger crowd is THE future.
 
mr.torrence said:
Aussie...you need to chill, crack open a cold one and relax old boy. Clearly you did not read the very beginning. (you know..the very first sentence that's in nice, bold, black font..) Can YOU not read?
Butorac is trying to speed up the game by trying to ENGAGE a YOUNGER crowd and, by doing so, trying to generate a new fanbase for YOUNGER people. Why? Because he simply thinks the sport is too long and kids, and maybe people such as yourself, don't want to watch a tennis match that exceeds..I don't know, 2 hours? It boils down to attention spans, blinking lights, gimmicks, new shiny things, and what he thinks is best for the overall game and engaging new, YOUNGER viewers, which apparently you're part of...which is totally cool, brah.
Click to expand...
To me the problem isn't really young people's attention spans; they can play with their phones and watch tennis at the same time. The problem is that young adults are very busy having a life. 20s thru 40s you are building your career and raising children. And raising kids isn't like the olden days where you could just let them run wild in the neighborhood and tell them be home by dark. And there usually isn't a stay at home parent doing all the chores while the other parent is bringing home the bacon. It's a lot more time consuming these days (right or wrong is another debate). When your kids get older and you're settled in your career, you have more time to do really important things like watching lots of 5 hour matches and passing judgement on young people.
 
Keep them best of 5 in GS just at deuce - next point wins. And no nets on serve.

It will make it so much more exiting for the crowd too.

Will reduce the average time of a 5 set match down from say 3 and a half hours to 2 hours 45 minutes.

That's a big saving in time whilst making it so much more drama filled for the crowd.
 
Goatios said:
Might actually make things slower since there'll be fewer aces and quick points.

ATP tournaments: 5-5 tiebreakers, super TB at 5-5 in 3rd set
GS tournaments: 5-5 tiebreakers, super TB after 2 sets all

That will keep ATP matches roughly the same length on average while shortening 5 set GS matches by half an hour or so.
Click to expand...
Really like the super TB for deciding sets, Kind of makes up for shortening with tiebreakers at 5 all and a more sensible end to matches. GS needs to stay 5 sets. This is an easy first step and the deciding set super TB is just genius and better for fans and players too. A regular tiebreaker seems too short in the final set of a big match.
 
10-breakthroughs-tv-dinners-2.jpg


"And you don't even have to do the dishes."
 
Vanhool said:
To me the problem isn't really young people's attention spans; they can play with their phones and watch tennis at the same time. The problem is that young adults are very busy having a life. 20s thru 40s you are building your career and raising children. And raising kids isn't like the olden days where you could just let them run wild in the neighborhood and tell them be home by dark. And there usually isn't a stay at home parent doing all the chores while the other parent is bringing home the bacon. It's a lot more time consuming these days (right or wrong is another debate). When your kids get older and you're settled in your career, you have more time to do really important things like watching lots of 5 hour matches and passing judgement on young people.
Click to expand...

I think this is the problem with growing the sport at the club/rec level. I just entered my 40's and feel I'm almost the younger player after the high school kids in our club. I think the pricing of indoor tennis coupled with time requirement to get good, really take a low priority when you are feeding kids and trying to make ends meet.

On another note, BO3 would have made that Murray/Neishikori match not memorable. But it turned out to be a topsy turvy and interesting 5 setter. Last nights match with Delpo and Stan also showed the need for B05.
 
"The younger crowd is the future", yes sir...but that doesn't mean that every single idea created for the young crowd of the future is going to be a good or lucrative one. How about the crowd that isn't ready to kick the bucket any time soon? Let's say the 30-40 year old crowd that are NOT parents? I know, a rare breed indeed, but still....no voice?
Hands off ATP tennis, and hands on, hands all over, 'guinea pig' the hell out of college tennis all you want. If anything, speed up the courts, keep the point system the same and keep ****ing with college tennis.
And if you don't have time to watch a 5 hour match in real time, I get it. I have to work too. People have lives. But that's usually what replays are for. If you have that option that is.

"Also, we need a pottycam. If they take an unscheduled break or go over the time allowance, we get to see any mirror conversations and a full accounting of what's taking so long in there. :D"

..whatever you say Creepy McCreeperson.
 
Robert F said:
I think this is the problem with growing the sport at the club/rec level. I just entered my 40's and feel I'm almost the younger player after the high school kids in our club. I think the pricing of indoor tennis coupled with time requirement to get good, really take a low priority when you are feeding kids and trying to make ends meet.

On another note, BO3 would have made that Murray/Neishikori match not memorable. But it turned out to be a topsy turvy and interesting 5 setter. Last nights match with Delpo and Stan also showed the need for B05.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. That match would not have been nearly as memorable, 'edge of your seat' epic, if it was truncated down to a mere BO3. And yes too on the Delpo match.
 
mr.torrence said:
"The younger crowd is the future", yes sir...but that doesn't mean that every single idea created for the young crowd of the future is going to be a good or lucrative one. How about the crowd that isn't ready to kick the bucket any time soon? Let's say the 30-40 year old crowd that are NOT parents? I know, a rare breed indeed, but still....no voice?
Hands off ATP tennis, and hands on, hands all over, 'guinea pig' the hell out of college tennis all you want. If anything, speed up the courts, keep the point system the same and keep ****ing with college tennis.
And if you don't have time to watch a 5 hour match in real time, I get it. I have to work too. People have lives. But that's usually what replays are for. If you have that option that is.

"Also, we need a pottycam. If they take an unscheduled break or go over the time allowance, we get to see any mirror conversations and a full accounting of what's taking so long in there. :D"

..whatever you say Creepy McCreeperson.
Click to expand...
...and good luck keeping those kids off your lawn, Crabby Crabappleton.
 
Honestly, though I like tennis I struggle with the time investment to watch many BO5 matches on TV and often skip parts early on it sets unless both players are really on it. Most matches just are not high quality enough to sit through 2.5-5hrs.

Shorter sets sounds like a good idea since it doesn't fundamentally change the game too much
I'd also support BO3 until the QFs in slams
 
best-of-five sets only happens four times a year. that's eight weeks out of the entire jam-packed tennis calendar. besides the fact that i am personally against altering the format for the four most prestigious tournaments of our sport, focusing on best-of-five isn't really dealing with the core issues at hand.
 
What a strange dichotomy. For so long we have been told this is the greatest era, players are better than ever, the best four players playing at the same time, the ATP being more popular than ever on the back of these guys.

Whilst at the same time being told matches are way too long which in essence must mean they are boring and not holding the attention of the audience and thus losing viewers.

Not sure what to make of that. If they see a player serve and volley thirty times in a match, I get the impression the executives need to go and lie down in a darkened room, the thought of it terrifies them, they must get nightmares about it. The courts will have to stay medium paced everywhere so I suppose the next best thing is to shorten matches by tinkering with amount of games played.
 
Sudden death at deuce like in doubles is probably all that is needed. Shame to lose some epic long games but we'll get over it.
 
And when these *improvements* (BO3, No Ad, random drone interception) don't have the desired effect? Because a lot of times these things don't end up actually fixing things. They just put enough lipstick on a pig so someone can collect a little more money before getting punted for someone who seems more capable of doing the job.

And why the quarterfinals for BO5 to start? Why not just second round? Or better yet, how about a randomizer, and before the match the computer tells them whether they are playing BO3 or BO5? That's put some excitement into the game! You think Djokovic gets super lucky with some walkovers, how about the guy who goes the distance and never had to play BO5?
 
Complete nonsense!

He wants to see Andy and Nole play for 2 hours instead of 4? Well then just turn off the TV after 2 hours and start do something else. Or just tune in after one hour. You missed the first set, but a whole match still there to see. This is what I do sometimes.
TV companies complain? We live in the era of pay per view and multi-channel sport channels. TV stations who want to schedule Seinfeld after a Grand Slam match are becoming less relevant each year.
Attract a bigger fanbase? Why should we? I believe in the Apple philosophy to this point: we are not there to please the consumer, the consumer is there to please us!

As an amateur I play short sets (4 games in a set instead of 6) on rare occasions and it is just not fun. You become risk averse. No first games to experiment.
 
Last edited:
MikeMechanic said:
Complete nonsense!

He wants to see Andy and Nole play for 2 hours instead of 4? Well then just turn off the TV after 2 hours and start do something else. Or just tune in after one hour. You missed the first set, but a whole match still there to see. This is what I do sometimes.
TV companies complain? We live in the era of pay per view and multi-channel sport channels. TV stations who want to schedule Seinfeld after a Grand Slam match are becoming less relevant each year.
Attract a bigger fanbase? Why should we? I believe in the Apple philosophy to this point: we are not there to please the consumer, the consumer is there to please us!

As an amateur I play short sets (4 games in a set instead of 6) on rare occasions and it is just not fun. You become risk averse. No first games to experiment.
Click to expand...

TV Companies are not becoming less relevant. Not when they pay the freight in exchange for the broadcast rights. ESPN pays $70 million a year for "The US Open and US Open Series." Only creative accounting says that more then 5% of that can be attributed to not the US Open. Until you and I can directly pay for an app to stream matches, they are very much relevant. Whether that is a good thing or not, is a different discussion, but the reality is, the vast majority of money come from either them, or sponsors who care only about a)how often their logo gets shown to people, and b)where their tickets are.

And Apple can only have that attitude because they make products that consumers do like. They were on their way out until they went against everything they originally believed and allowed iTunes to be Windows compatible. *That* is what saved that company. The market speaks, so long as regulations don't allow for a monopoly, and companies can't ignore that. What would need to happen is a competing tournament played under the rules you wish to have in order to ensure these changes don't come about. I don't like many of the proposed changes, but the reality is, there are too many factors that make your two points difficult to take that view.

"Turn the TV off after two hours", however, is the proper response to this guy's thought. If you don't like it, don't watch it. The market will take care of the rest.
 
Bluefan75 said:
And when these *improvements* (BO3, No Ad, random drone interception) don't have the desired effect? Because a lot of times these things don't end up actually fixing things. They just put enough lipstick on a pig so someone can collect a little more money before getting punted for someone who seems more capable of doing the job.

And why the quarterfinals for BO5 to start? Why not just second round? Or better yet, how about a randomizer, and before the match the computer tells them whether they are playing BO3 or BO5? That's put some excitement into the game! You think Djokovic gets super lucky with some walkovers, how about the guy who goes the distance and never had to play BO5?
Click to expand...
this is my point. you start tinkering with things and who's to know what's working and what isn't? by the time you figure it out, maybe you're worse off that you were to begin with. you've got to start with one variable at a time. and if you're gonna do that, i don't think we need to start with screwing around with the scoring system. i think that's insane. it's a knee-jerk response to a much bigger problem. like you said, "lipstick on a pig."

the scoring system has existed in it's present form for decades. and suddenly, it needs an overhaul? why? because matches are too long? that is no fault of the scoring system, believe me.

posters are making suggestions about how to shorten 5-set matches with no-ad, with super tiebreaks . . .

48% of best-of-five matches at the slams are straight setters! 18% go five sets. is it really wise to tinker with the scoring system for best-of-five matches (which only happen four times a year) and 5-setters (which occur only 18% of the time)?
 
skip1969 said:
this is my point. you start tinkering with things and who's to know what's working and what isn't? by the time you figure it out, maybe you're worse off that you were to begin with. you've got to start with one variable at a time. and if you're gonna do that, i don't think we need to start with screwing around with the scoring system. i think that's insane. it's a knee-jerk response to a much bigger problem. like you said, "lipstick on a pig."

the scoring system has existed in it's present form for decades. and suddenly, it needs an overhaul? why? because matches are too long? that is no fault of the scoring system, believe me.

posters are making suggestions about how to shorten 5-set matches with no-ad, with super tiebreaks . . .

48% of best-of-five matches at the slams are straight setters! 18% go five sets. is it really wise to tinker with the scoring system for best-of-five matches (which only happen four times a year) and 5-setters (which occur only 18% of the time)?
Click to expand...

This reminds me more and more of hockey and of baseball. In hockey, there is always talk of needing new rules to improve things or "fix things." No, enforce the rule book. Baseball games take too long, need to do this and that. Or, how about telling umpires to call the strike zone the way the rule book defines. Tennis' analogy? Hold players to the time limit between points.

But no, need to come up with all these other "great ideas" because.... well, really, because someone wants to be thought of as having been a "forward looking visionary."
 
Bluefan75 said:
This reminds me more and more of hockey and of baseball. In hockey, there is always talk of needing new rules to improve things or "fix things." No, enforce the rule book. Baseball games take too long, need to do this and that. Or, how about telling umpires to call the strike zone the way the rule book defines. Tennis' analogy? Hold players to the time limit between points.

But no, need to come up with all these other "great ideas" because.... well, really, because someone wants to be thought of as having been a "forward looking visionary."
Click to expand...
rule enforcement is a key component, to be sure!

toweling off after every point.
no adherence to the time between points.
not playing to the pace of the server.
using challenges to stall/catch your breath/change momentum.
match timeouts, bathroom breaks . . .

the players are using every trick at their disposal to slow the game down. lets address that issue. whatever rules are in place are not being enforced.

when was it, a few years ago now, when the tour decided that there wasn't gonna be a changeover after the first game of the match. that you had to change ends and play the first three games before you sat for the 'first' changeover. i laughed out loud. i'm thinkin' . . . THAT'S your big plan for speeding up the game? great. you just saved yourselves a whole 60 seconds a set. congratulations. big deal. it was like handing a band-aid to someone with a ruptured appendix. :rolleyes:

the players still stop to drink and towel off after the first game, anyway. the same as they do on changeovers during tiebreakers. even though, technically, they aren't supposed to.
 
Most reasonable experiment to start with is a tie breaker at 5-5. It would be the least disruptive to traditional play, but could save 10-15 minutes+ per set that's going to breakers.

No-ad scoring is probably the next least game altering change.

Best of 3 sets for the 1st week of the slams also seems logical.
 
Vanhool said:
To me the problem isn't really young people's attention spans; they can play with their phones and watch tennis at the same time. The problem is that young adults are very busy having a life. 20s thru 40s you are building your career and raising children. And raising kids isn't like the olden days where you could just let them run wild in the neighborhood and tell them be home by dark. And there usually isn't a stay at home parent doing all the chores while the other parent is bringing home the bacon. It's a lot more time consuming these days (right or wrong is another debate). When your kids get older and you're settled in your career, you have more time to do really important things like watching lots of 5 hour matches and passing judgement on young people.
Click to expand...

After you have your first child, you may as well be dead if there isn't a stay at home parent. Having kids is for rich people like Federer and Djokovic. And they don't even need 1 parent because they can afford nannies. Anyone else is just signing up for slavery.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm old school, but no-ad scoring would be another stab to the uniqueness and greatness of tennis.

Winning by 2 vs. 1 point in games mirrors the concept of winning by 2 games in a set. It makes the win more likely to be done by skill and the better player, not necessarily luck. It can also narrow the margin between two players to force the better player to stay on his toes.

That is also taken into the consideration of needing to win sets not just total games. It allows a player to get back into the match and again forces the better player to be a force. This is a factor that often separates the top 50 from the top 20 and the top 20 from the top 10. You can't just play one great set and be done, you have to repeat it over and over.

Wouldn't no-ad scoring give a big advantage to serve-bots and bring back the fear of serve-bots?

I prefer keeping things the way they are. Probably, to enrich tennis viewership is going to come via grass roots and finding ways to beat electronic media options with playing tennis which will then feed tennis veiwership. Heck here in the states so many outdoor courts have been converted to basketball courts or skating rings/parks. Used to be they were full of people playing tennis.

I guess if I had to make a change, I would go to BO3, but make it 8 sets games.
BO5 with 6 games can be 6-7, 7-6, 6-7, 7-6, 7-6 A total of 65 games.

BO3 with 6 games can be 6-7, 7-6, 6-7. A total of 39 games.

BO3 with 8 games can be 8-6, 6-8, 8-6. A total of 42 games.
 
AndyBarronMuzza said:
Why can't they just make it BO5 for Semis/Finals? Since those are the matches that are 'usually' the best.
Click to expand...
Presumably that would put the top seeds in danger of being taken out in the early rounds by redlining young guns/journeymen who might be able to pull off a BO3 win but would tire towards the end of a BO5. Like Djokovic being taken out in two close tiebreaks in the second round before he's played himself into form. Fine in a less important tournament, but you do need to make sure stuff like that is less likely to happen in a seven-match grand slam.
 
I think the potential huge time length of matches is something that distinguishes tennis from other sports. If you show a casual sports fan a great rally they'd be like yeah that's great, but you tell them that those same guys did that for 5 hours? Now that commands respect from any sports fan.

Also, and this is a big thing, matches don't typically last near that long. Most best of 5 matches are over in under three hours. Even so though, not many people watch every point even in best of 3 matches. It's not about that. It's about the momentum swings, the break points, the highlights. So when that drama goes on for 4-5 hours, it's something special. That's an insane amount of time for anyone to compete at such a high level, and to take that away from us because think we don't have the attention span or the time is just dumb. Because again, no one really watches every point even in best of 3 matches.

Messing with small things like the amount of points in a tiebreaker or no-ad scoring isn't a good idea either. It'll save 30 minutes of a 5 hour match at the cost of really shaking up the game and its traditions.

I say just leave it the same and enjoy the tennis.

You want to get young kids to watch tennis? Don't worry about time. Kids have all the time in the world. Try having some good American players, that'll do the trick.
 
If we have to "shorten the game" (which I am not in the favor of doing), here are my ideas to do that, but at the same time avoid crapshoots:

1: In all the rounds before Round of 64, play BO3 matches instead, but said BO3 matches will be tiebreakerless.

2: Instead of a fifth set, play a 10 point tiebreaker.

3: Tiebreakers at 5-all instead of 6-all.
 
Last edited:
My problem is that if that men's grand slam matches were shortened to best of 3 sets, then wouldn't it become easier to win grand slams titles than masters series events?

A player would then need to come through 7 best of 3 set matches in 13/14 days to win a grand slam title. To win Indian Wells/Miami they would need to come through 6 in 9/10 days (if one of the 32 seeds), and to win one of the other masters series titles they would need to come through 5 in 5/6 days or 6 in 6/7 days (if not one of the top 8 seeds).

I regard the quarter-finals onwards as the 'business end' of a grand slam tournament, so I would at least want those last 3 rounds to remain best of 5. The US Open format at 1975-1977 on the green clay at Forest Hills was interesting. The 1975 and 1976 events were best of 3 in the first 3 rounds, and best of 5 from the 4th round onwards. The 1977 tournament was best of 3 in the first 4 rounds, and best of 5 from the quarter-finals onwards.
 
Another match where BO5 made it a worthwhile battle. Sure Stan and Djoker played a good 3 sets, but it seemed Stan kepty getting better. Great shot making from Stan and you'd want to shut that down after 3 sets?

I'm starting to think Stan is that guy that takes 2 hours to warm up and then gets better. So BO3 probably hurts him on the non-slam events.
The BO5 keeps you on your seat more. Set one to Djoker. In BO3 your thinking this is probably over. In BO5, Djoker just has the momentum but can he keep it up for 5 sets?
 
Gizo said:
My problem is that if that men's grand slam matches were shortened to best of 3 sets, then wouldn't it become easier to win grand slams titles than masters series events . . .
Click to expand...

Robert F said:
Another match where BO5 made it a worthwhile battle . . .
Click to expand...

best-of-five is the only thing that separates the men from the boys (and the women, for that matter).

it's the only thing that separates us from the barbarian horde. :D
 
I think he's right, and a few easy common-sense things will help:
1. I don't want to watch anyone play 5 f****** sets. If 2/3 sets is good enough for the other pro tourneys... If you want to distinguish the slams in that way, then leave only the final 3/5.
2. None of this warm-up BS before a match. I find that delay very anti-climactic, and I don't want them getting used to each other's play until it counts in the match.
3. Don't change sides after ONE game. That would make the coin-toss more important. And it's superfluous indoors. Indoors, don't even change sides, or change every set.
4. If you're going to call them on time between points, a shot-clock is the only fair way to do it. And 25-30 seconds ISN'T long enough after a long point with a lot of running. In women's pro billiards they get 45 secs between shots, and can call one timeout (of 45 secs) per rack. And they don't run. How 'bout 40 secs between points, with a 2 timeout options per set (or what ever)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tennisaddict
SI Podcast : Jon Wertheim with ATP Player Council President
Replies
2
Views
775
tennisaddict
tennisaddict
jwjh
Federer steps down as ATP Player Council President
Replies
34
Views
5K
Noleberic123
Noleberic123
Bartelby
Structure of the ATP
Replies
9
Views
1K
Bartelby
Bartelby
Harry_Wild
ATP Players Council and Chris Kermode!
Replies
15
Views
2K
Meles
Meles
clayqueen
Novak Djokovic officially withdraws from ATP player council elections due to ‘conflict of interest’
Replies
25
Views
1K
blablavla
B
Back
Top