Should men play best-of-three set matches in the early rounds of Slams?

[JennyS]

Some journalists have suggested the idea and think that all matches prior to the qf's should be best of 3 setters. I see pros and cons with this:

Pros: players would have more energy for the later rounds

Cons: Slams are SUPPOSED to be best of 5 set matches for 7 rounds. And they have two weeks to play the event so why bother? Plus we'd see a lot more early round upsets.

 

[FredMurray]

No,If the US Open(It would be the slam most likely to implement this idea) ever did this, I would never watch it again.

 

[Talker]

No, endurance is part of the deal here.

 

[Dgpsx7]

I say no because I think a slam should be the ultimate test and I don't think athletes in worse shape should get rewarded. Plus this is another good way to decipher slams from masters series events.

 

[EtePras]

Who cares, they already get a day of rest between every match.

 

[President]

Who cares, they already get a day of rest between every match.

Have you ever actually contributed something positive to a thread? I haven't been here a long time, but even I can see that you are quite possibly the worst poster here.

 

[Breaker]

No, they already removed 5 setters from all other tournaments not counting Davis Cup and Olympics, it would devalue slams far too much.

 

[VivalaVida]

No, they already removed 5 setters from all other tournaments not counting Davis Cup and Olympics, it would devalue slams far too much.

Dont forget that it will make it easier for Roger to tank. he he

 

[Breaker]

Dont forget that it will make it easier for Roger to tank. he he

Well that just goes without saying, he is horrible for his fans.

 

[abmk]

No

10 chars

 

[drwood]

Definitely not. Its what makes a slam a slam.

Now for women's slams, I think they should make the QF and beyond best-of-five. No reason they shouldn't be held to the same standards as men in the late stages of a slam IMO; I remember they used to do that for the finals of the year-end championship and there were some good matches.

 

[Sentinel]

No.

But i often think if a player wins the first 2 sets, they should stop the match. It's painful having to watch a top ranked player breadsticking some lower ranked guy three sets, esp when you are waiting for the next match on that court, or for your telly telecast to move to another court after this match.

 

[akv89]

No. It's not like they should need it anyway. They usually get a day off in between matches.

 

[bluetrain4]

I voted "no" but can't help that it would be intriguing if done correctly. But, I'd say play the whole tournament best of 3. Increase the draws to 256, have them play 8 rounds, all best of 3, no tiebreak 3rd set, or maybe even no tiebreaks at all.

I like the idea of different challenges to test a player's overall tennis ability. Different surfaces present different challenges. The USO 5th set tiebreak (which so many people despise) presents a different pressure and different challenge than playing the set out. Obviously, best of 5 tests endurance. But, best of 3 tests immediacy - the ability to come out playing well and keep it up for the whole match. And, it also disallows, to a large extent, lulls or bad patches that a player may be able to get away with in best of 5.

On the flip side, have the women play one Slam best of 5, or at least best of 5 from the QFs onward. I know that right now this sounds like a horrible idea given the state of the women's game. But, I'd love to see how it would play out after being established for a few years.

 

[Bud]

They should also change the MS tournaments back to the best 3/5 sets.

 

[BigServer1]

They should also change the MS tournaments back to the best 3/5 sets.

I agree with you about this, at least for the final, and I wouldn't mind seeing the SF go to this as well.

 

[ubermeyer]

Some journalists have suggested the idea and think that all matches prior to the qf's should be best of 3 setters. I see pros and cons with this:

Pros: players would have more energy for the later rounds

Cons: Slams are SUPPOSED to be best of 5 set matches for 7 rounds. And they have two weeks to play the event so why bother? Plus we'd see a lot more early round upsets.

I think qualifying rounds should be best of 3, but the main rounds (R128 - Final) should be 5 sets. I mean, the qualifiers probably are much more tired than the main draw people.

 

[scotus]

The best-of-5-sets format better ensures that the better player comes out the winner.

 

[aimr75]

god no.. who could handle the "5 Set era vs. 3 Set Era Slam" threads

 

[wyutani]

nadal will like this.

 

[bluetrain4]

god no.. who could handle the "5 Set era vs. 3 Set Era Slam" threads

Lol. You're right. It would be a TW thread nightmare. Every "best of generation" or GOAT dsicussion would hinge on this fact. What if one player won 10 Slams, with 3 of those being the best of 3 Slam, while another won only 8 Slams, but none were the best of 3 Slam. It would never, ever end.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

hell no !!!

 

[zagor]

Not in a million years,horrible idea.Best of five is what makes slams unique and makes it the ultimate test of player's resolve,mental strength and fitness.

Heck,I think WTA should play best of 5 from QFs in slams as the way things are slams have very little difference from masters tourneys in WTA.

 

[JankovicFan]

Yes, because players could be expected to play every day the same as during a 1000 series event. We forget that best of 5 is combined with a 2 week long tournament. Being able to compress the schedule would improve how many matches could be televised or have high spectator attendance.

The 5 set, every other day format could kick in at quarter finals or even later but basically the second and final week. What should be avoided is what has been happening to the finalists, in that they wind up playing their toughest matches without a day's break between. If the first week is compressed, there are some days to allow better scheduling. Semis could be Thursday and Friday, and finals could be Saturday and Sunday, men and women respectively.

I am aware that some of the drama of players getting caught early in grinding wins, affecting later matches, would be lost, but the point should be the quality of the last few matches, allowing fans to see players at or near their best. There shouldn't be endless discussion for generations about how so-and-so was too tired for the finals.

 

[120mphBodyServe]

This is the worst suggestion/thread ever in the General Pro Discussion.
Grand Slams is all about best of 5.

 

[joeri888]

NO WAY! Bring back the 5 set finals at the MS events. More men's tennis, not less! Worst idea ever.

 

[cknobman]

I voted NO.

Women should play best of 5 set matches!!! Put that option on there and then you might have a real poll.

 

[fantom]

No.

But i often think if a player wins the first 2 sets, they should stop the match. It's painful having to watch a top ranked player breadsticking some lower ranked guy three sets, esp when you are waiting for the next match on that court, or for your telly telecast to move to another court after this match.

You'd be taking one of the most fascinating feats in tennis out of the equation. Some of the most memorable matches of all time are when a player comes back to win from 2 sets down.

 

[fantom]

Please don't ever make any WTA match 5 sets!!! That means we would possibly have to see more women's tennis!

 

[mordecai]

I think that best-of-five setters make seeds more likely to hold until the later rounds. So, no.

 

[fps]

those journalists care about the result over the fight, the headline over the story, their time over the sport.

 

[Talker]

Should we change a marathon to 15 miles?
The quality would be higher, especially at the end.

 

[joeri888]

I voted NO.

Women should play best of 5 set matches!!! Put that option on there and then you might have a real poll.

They should...


On untelevised courts.

 

[Fedfan1234]

No I think 3 set matches are mostly a joke. Not much room to turn a match around, if you lose the first set and get an early break in the second in most cases the match is over, not a real chance of recovery. BAD IDEA

 

[JRstriker12]

Heck to the NO!

Slams are the ultimate test and are supposed ot be more difficult to win than other tourneys. Winning the best out of 5 is part of this.

I don't see the need to open the main draw even further and I can't see the players being happy with playing every day through a slam.

On top of that, there's something to be said for preserving some traditions - this is one of them.

 

[cknobman]

They should...


On untelevised courts.

Good point. Earn your money just like the men, just dont make us watch!!!

 

[r2473]

Women should play best of 5 set matches

As far as women....

When the tours are playing a combined event (like slams), women should play 1 set. Let's free up the courts for tennis.

When they are playing their own event, they could play 7 sets for all I care (I mean, who the hell would know anyway).

 

[cknobman]

As far as women....

When the tours are playing a combined event (like slams), women should play 1 set. Let's free up the courts for tennis.

When they are playing their own event, they could play 7 sets for all I care (I mean, who the hell would know anyway).

OMG that is evil.:twisted:

I completely agree.

 

[FiveO]

Not a new idea, and it's been done in prior years. It was a bad idea then and a bad idea now. There is something to be said for the ability to work through or maintain a winning level through best of 5 matches. It is the unique test of Major competition, not unlike the unique tests of the conditions set up for golf's Majors.

so an emphatic NO!

5

 

[dadozen]

The best-of-5-sets format better ensures that the better player comes out the winner.

You'd be taking one of the most fascinating feats in tennis out of the equation. Some of the most memorable matches of all time are when a player comes back to win from 2 sets down.

those journalists care about the result over the fight, the headline over the story, their time over the sport.

Heck to the NO!

Slams are the ultimate test and are supposed ot be more difficult to win than other tourneys. Winning the best out of 5 is part of this.

I don't see the need to open the main draw even further and I can't see the players being happy with playing every day through a slam.

On top of that, there's something to be said for preserving some traditions - this is one of them.

Totally agreed with all posters above. Best of 5 sets makes tennis the great sport it is. They make the Slams what they are. They reveal the true winners. At the end of one Slam, you won't ever doubt that the winner was the most prepared one to win that title. The one that took all opportunities he had.

Even MS events in 3 sets are a joke. They shouldn't be called MASTERS anymore.

 

[Badger]

Definitely not. Its what makes a slam a slam.

Now for women's slams, I think they should make the QF and beyond best-of-five. No reason they shouldn't be held to the same standards as men in the late stages of a slam IMO; I remember they used to do that for the finals of the year-end championship and there were some good matches.

Now there's an idea. They get the same money now so they should at least play the later stages to the same level.