Why 2 out of 3 sets?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by wings56, Apr 27, 2008.

  1. wings56

    wings56 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,648
    Why have the masters series tournaments gone to 2 out of 3 sets in the finals? I always enjoyed the battle of 3 out of 5 in the finals.... Anyone else's thoughts?
     
    #1
  2. Klatu Verata Necktie

    Klatu Verata Necktie Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,823
    Location:
    Miami, Fl
    When word came that the Miami Masters final would be best 2 out of 3 instead of 3 out of 5, there were quite a few season ticket holders who were up in arms. The players and fans seemed to love the epic, long finals.

    My guess as to why the finals have been shortened is to accommodate TV time.
     
    #2
  3. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,623
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    It was a great idea. I think the slams should do the same in the early rounds. It is not good for the players health to be extended in such long matches.
     
    #3
  4. shawn1122

    shawn1122 Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,132
    I think the slams should stay the way they are, changing the format in early rounds changes the dynamic of the game, losing two sets is much more easier than losing three in some cases. I also enjoyed the five set matches they used to have in masters series finals, but it was too much strain on players so they had to go with three sets, expecially for masters series that are seperated by only a week (like indian wells and miami or monte carlo and rome this year)
     
    #4
  5. Klatu Verata Necktie

    Klatu Verata Necktie Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,823
    Location:
    Miami, Fl
    I have a hard time believing the change was in order to protect the players' health. Out of 64 players in the draw, only 2 would be affected by a long match in the finals.
     
    #5
  6. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,623
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    Alright correction. Protect the top players of the games health. Also to allow them to play more tournaments.
     
    #6
  7. Tennisfan!

    Tennisfan! Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    154
    Location:
    Kooyong
    Take a look at 70's.
    All great event best of 5.
    Nobody protects those players, great players.
    Today everybody have so many problems to just play and shut the moyh.
     
    #7
  8. Tennisfan!

    Tennisfan! Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    154
    Location:
    Kooyong
    I want to mean the mouth close:twisted:
     
    #8
  9. wings56

    wings56 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,648
    I mean they are professionals, without us paying to watch them, they wouldn't have a living.
     
    #9
  10. janipyt05

    janipyt05 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    814
    Because the player get tired, and i think its best yes for entertainment purposes we would all love best of 5 but after you switch of the tv go get something to eat their in a plane of to play else where. Its only fair to make life easier for player who play so much in a long 11 month season
     
    #10
  11. stormholloway

    stormholloway Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,829
    Location:
    New York City
    We're talking a best of 5 set final. It's one match. A 3 setter can only be so great, and rarely "epic".
     
    #11
  12. Leublu tennis

    Leublu tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,424
    Location:
    Moldova
    I would sure go with the 5 set final for all the Masters. Is there anything greater than a player coming back from an early 2 set loss? That to me is a great achievement.
     
    #12
  13. spikyblackhair

    spikyblackhair Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    144
    Yeah, having a best of 5 also reduces the chances for players to "steal" a win, so to speak. With a best of 3, less consistent players should have a better chance.
     
    #13
  14. callitout

    callitout Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,302
    Sure and some of the top guys were on nonperformance enhancing drugs; and training off court was very limited.
    So what are we to conclude that tenns has changed quite a bit from the 70's I hope. Whether its a better game is a different issue, but its a much more physical game. The strings and racquets benefit players who swing virtually as hard as they can on nearly every shot. The wood racquet era didnt allow that.
     
    #14
  15. coloskier

    coloskier Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,838
    Especially Nadal.:) All kidding aside, they are Grand Slams because they are as much a marathon as they are a test of skills. It is just as important how fast you beat someone in the earlier rounds. Go long in the early rounds and you are toast later. It keeps you from coasting in the early rounds.
     
    #15
  16. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,708
    Location:
    S. Florida
    My goodness, when has tennis become such an effeminate sport? The players of yesteryear not only played the best of 5, but they did not have tiebreakers either so their matches ran much longer. Fitness and mental toughness is part of the game, and best of 5 brings that out more than best of 3.

    To the OP, I agree with you and here is a similar thread on this subject where I expressed my dismay.

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=190409
     
    #16
  17. edmondsm

    edmondsm Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    In an in between place.
    NOOOOOOO!!!!! If the players can't hack it then they should start doing some more conditioning. Don't mess with the slams.
     
    #17
  18. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,116
    I agree it's good this way, but don't take the one thing that makes the Slams different away. Slams have to be exhausting. They have to be the climax and you should be out of action for 10 months after playin a slam:)
     
    #18
  19. sacha_v

    sacha_v New User

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Paris
    the phisical effort in the past was much lower then now, and winning in 2 sets is no "stealing"
    Also why should players playing finals be disadvantaged for the following week? everyone else has played less matches and best of 2
     
    #19
  20. stormholloway

    stormholloway Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,829
    Location:
    New York City
    On clay the rallies were much longer. A 5 setter was a damn long match on clay.
     
    #20
  21. Volly master

    Volly master Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    656
    They didnt want guys from pulling out of the next weeks events.

    Look at Rome//Hamburg for many years.
     
    #21
  22. miniRafa386

    miniRafa386 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,690
    bingo

    nadal/coria rome 05, nadal/federer rome 06, also, think of all the other 5 set matches there were, paris 05, madrid 05, miami 05, and probably more (cant think of any other ones off the top of my head)
     
    #22

Share This Page