Women's scheduling solved by men's best of 3

diggler

diggler

Hall of Fame
There has been a lot of discussion about the women's scheduling on the main court. In particular, there is only one match at night in prime time, a men's match. This is preceded by the day session which is 2 women's and a men's.

The reason for this is clear. Men's matches are 5 sets and the length of tennis matches is unpredictable. If you schedule a women's then a men's at night, you could get a 4am finish as happens sometimes in the Aussie Open.

The answer is to make men's matches best of 3 for the first 4 rounds. That would allow you to schedule 2 men's and 2 women's during the day and a mens and a women's at night. Women can get their prime time spot.

Women's quarter finals is typically the second Tuesday. The 2 matches from the top half of the draw can be in the morning session. The two in the bottom half of the draw can be in the evening session. Women's semis can be on Thursday night with the final on Saturday night.

Men's quarter finals which are best of 5 can be 2 on the Tuesday day session and on Wednesday day and night. The semis are Friday day and night, final on Sunday night.

Men

The men will be happy because the lighter workload of best of 3 for 4 rounds is better for their bodies. They also have more energy for the final rounds.

Women

The women get a night time prime time match for the first 8 days, plus 2 quarters, both semis and the final.

Fans

The fans are also winners. The day session gets an extra men's match. The night session gets an extra women's match.
 
giphy.gif
 
diggler said:
There has been a lot of discussion about the women's scheduling on the main court. In particular, there is only one match at night in prime time, a men's match. This is preceded by the day session which is 2 women's and a men's.

The reason for this is clear. Men's matches are 5 sets and the length of tennis matches is unpredictable. If you schedule a women's then a men's at night, you could get a 4am finish as happens sometimes in the Aussie Open.

The answer is to make men's matches best of 3 for the first 4 rounds. That would allow you to schedule 2 men's and 2 women's during the day and a mens and a women's at night. Women can get their prime time spot.

Women's quarter finals is typically the second Tuesday. The 2 matches from the top half of the draw can be in the morning session. The two in the bottom half of the draw can be in the evening session. Women's semis can be on Thursday night with the final on Saturday night.

Men's quarter finals which are best of 5 can be 2 on the Tuesday day session and on Wednesday day and night. The semis are Friday day and night, final on Sunday night.

Men

The men will be happy because the lighter workload of best of 3 for 4 rounds is better for their bodies. They also have more energy for the final rounds.

Women

The women get a night time prime time match for the first 8 days, plus 2 quarters, both semis and the final.

Fans

The fans are also winners. The day session gets an extra men's match. The night session gets an extra women's match.
Click to expand...
I think we are definitely heading in this direction. It would solve a lot of issues in one move and would also significantly decrease the overheads created by churning through the massive amount of uneventful matches that are way longer than anyone cares for them to be and clog scheduling early. Going to 3 sets in early rounds means we can watch that James Duckworth vs Chris O'Conner epic but it goes for three sets and 3 hours instead of 5 sets and 5 hours.

Only question for me is where to start the Bo3 format in the tournament. Majors are special because we want to see the best players challenged in that 5 set format by other great players or other players in great form. I wouldn't want Bo3 to stay too late in the event where we are robbed of a bigger amount of great tennis. But even just having it in the very early rounds would solve a heap of issues churning the massive player draw at majors.

Very much in favour of doing this in majors and getting masters finals back to Bo5.
 
Hmmm. I’m not sure. It sounds like pandering. The problem isn’t that men’s tennis is best of five. The problem is that the cost of the night match means spectators won’t get value for money when ribs beats penko in an hour. The fact is even a 90 minute three set men’s match will be more attractive than that.
The solution is to just get rid of the night session and put women, men, women, men starting at 10 am. The night session is nothing more than a cynical cash grab anyway. Sadly, RG need to pay for the recently remodelled soulless PC court.
 
diggler said:
There has been a lot of discussion about the women's scheduling on the main court. In particular, there is only one match at night in prime time, a men's match. This is preceded by the day session which is 2 women's and a men's.

The reason for this is clear. Men's matches are 5 sets and the length of tennis matches is unpredictable. If you schedule a women's then a men's at night, you could get a 4am finish as happens sometimes in the Aussie Open.

The answer is to make men's matches best of 3 for the first 4 rounds. That would allow you to schedule 2 men's and 2 women's during the day and a mens and a women's at night. Women can get their prime time spot.

Women's quarter finals is typically the second Tuesday. The 2 matches from the top half of the draw can be in the morning session. The two in the bottom half of the draw can be in the evening session. Women's semis can be on Thursday night with the final on Saturday night.

Men's quarter finals which are best of 5 can be 2 on the Tuesday day session and on Wednesday day and night. The semis are Friday day and night, final on Sunday night.

Men

The men will be happy because the lighter workload of best of 3 for 4 rounds is better for their bodies. They also have more energy for the final rounds.

Women

The women get a night time prime time match for the first 8 days, plus 2 quarters, both semis and the final.

Fans

The fans are also winners. The day session gets an extra men's match. The night session gets an extra women's match.
Click to expand...

Logistically this makes sense.

In terms of “what tennis is” - it doesn’t. At least not to my understanding.

For most fans, the ultimate expression of what tennis is, is the majors, the slams. And in that category - men’s tennis is the highest standard of speed and power and endurance. A big part of that is the best of five format: the ultimate challenge
In the game.

To diminish that - even in the lower rounds - will be a lessening of the character of the game itself at its greatest expression.

So… my vote is no.
 
Golf's Majors are 72 holes just like every other regular tour event. Best of 5 seems archaic to me. There's no sense of urgency with best of 5. Is anyone actually watching multiple 4 hour long matches? Making the Final best of 5 would be OK.
 
A lot of people say no. Do they have any suggestion to the scheduling problem that women don't get on primetime? No, of course they don't. If you asked the players I think the women would say yes. The lower ranked men would say yes because they have more chance of pulling off an upset. The higher ranked men might get upset, but would probably welcome the lighter load.

As to the spectators, they get an extra match in the day session and an extra match in the night session. The downside is shorter men's matches for the first few rounds. I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

My reading of this forum is that only men's tennis matters. I think the majority here would prefer there was no women's tennis at all and just all men's tennis. But this is not a men's tournament. This is a mixed tournament. To put all the emphasis on one side misses the point of a mixed tournament. There is not point saying no without solving the scheduling problem. Do you have a woman and men's match in the night session and run the risk of a 4am finish?
 
I'm not sure there is a scheduling problem. There are only so many hours in the day.
To avoid super long nights, they can only schedule one match. In the early rounds, fans are not going to be happy to buy a premier ticket and then risk seeing 2 quick sets of tennis.
5 setter and a men's match more often than not fills up more.

If you start a little earlier, you might be able to have the men play both matches during the day and both womens' matches at night. But don't be shocked if it isn't as full at night.

From my experience attending tournaments (not the Roland Garros) and watching tennis on TV, the women's matches don't fill as much especially in the early rounds. So I understand why a venue wants good usage of its facility.
I've been to Cincy several times to see a women's center court be 1/10th full while grandstand is packed watching a men's match. I've seen this with relative women stars--Rybkina in center, Kostyuk in center. It took a superstar to really fill it--Serena vs. Radacanu.

I know the world is pushing for shorter formats, but maybe the answer is the opposite. Have women play BO5. They would then guarantee a longer match and it would reduce the risk of snooze fest finals that are done in 60 minutes in the current BO3 format.
 
diggler said:
This is a mixed tournament.
Click to expand...
Have the Slams and other mixed tournaments always had men’s and women’s events at the same time? Does anyone know if this practice existed already in the 19th century or if men’s and women’s events were held at separate times at the same venues? I ask because it is uncommon in many ball sports for men’s and women’s events especially at the professional level to be held at the same time. But it seems quite common in tennis.
 
socallefty said:
Have the Slams and other mixed tournaments always had men’s and women’s events at the same time? Does anyone know if this practice existed already in the 19th century or if men’s and women’s events were held at separate times at the same venues? I ask because it is uncommon in many ball sports for men’s and women’s events especially at the professional level to be held at the same time. But it seems quite common in tennis.
Click to expand...
I believe the slams have been integrated the longest with men's and women's events. The masters and women's premier began to schedule together and it has benefited both tours in popularity and growth especially the WTA. There is a push for more and more to have combined events and continued rumors about eventually uniting the tours.

If the slams were separated--say women play in weeks 1-2 and men weeks 3-4. I worry how crowded the days without stars would be on both tours but worry slightly more on the women's tour.
If two journeymen were on court before a Serena match in the US Open, the journeymen match might be pretty full as people are grabbing seats for Serena.
The same goes the other way if tow journeywoman were playing before Fed, Fed will get the stadium full before he arrives.
 
socallefty said:
Have the Slams and other mixed tournaments always had men’s and women’s events at the same time? Does anyone know if this practice existed already in the 19th century or if men’s and women’s events were held at separate times at the same venues? I ask because it is uncommon in many ball sports for men’s and women’s events especially at the professional level to be held at the same time. But it seems quite common in tennis.
Click to expand...
The slams have always been mixed. If anything, the tendency is to have more mixed in tennis and other sports.
 
Robert F said:
I know the world is pushing for shorter formats, but maybe the answer is the opposite. Have women play BO5. They would then guarantee a longer match and it would reduce the risk of snooze fest finals that are done in 60 minutes in the current BO3 format.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand the problem. The night session is one best of 5 men's. How does making women's matches longer solve that problem.
 
But will any of the slam titles be of value historically after you short their format?
All the slams Nadal-Djokovic-Federer won will be more valuable than the slams won by Fonseca or whoever.
If they reduce slams to best-of-3-sets (for the first 4 rounds) then I hope it only happens after Alcaraz retires...
I'd hate for his slams to be infected by inferiority (n)
Tennis has never had a problem with best-of-5-sets before, so lets not manufacture a problem!

JMR said:
This is almost certainly wrong. The U.S. Open had a partial best-of-three format for men's matches from 1975 through 1978. This includes all three years on Har-Tru clay and the first year on hard courts at Flushing Meadows. In '75, '76, and '78, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first three rounds. In '77, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first four rounds.

The champions in those years were Orantes, Connors, Vilas, and Connors again. The runners-up were Connors, Borg, Connors again, and Borg again. I have never, not once, heard anyone claim that these slam accomplishments should be downgraded in any way due to the tournament's format. (Of course, some online pundits are simply ignorant of these facts, but that's their problem.) No arguments about "inferior" titles. No over-the-top theses about how to calculate any purported reduction in legacy value.

On a related front, no one (to my knowledge) insists that slams won in the pre-tiebreak era are worth more because they often required longer sets to be won.This applies to both men and women. Margaret Court beat BJK in the 1970 Wimbledon final, 14-12 11-9. Is that title worth more than Wimbledon titles won with sets that included tiebreaks? No. No one believes that. The 1970 final may be deemed a great match by many due to its length and closeness, but the championship obtained is not more valuable than later editions.
Click to expand...
That's because very few people are talking about what happened in the 1970s (and even back then, there was no internet to gauge public opinion, or even widespread media opinion), whereas everybody today is obsessed with the Big3, and if the Slam format is changed to best-of-3-sets in the early rounds in 2026... fans of the Big3 will definitely make the argument that Slams won in 2026 were less physically taxing that Slams won by the Big3.
Also, everybody is obsessed with the Slams now, because of the recent Slam Race :cool::cool::cool:
Whereas go back to even the 90s or 80s, and Slams were simply not taken as seriously...
 
Last edited:
I wonder if you poll tennis fans, what % would be pure ATP fans, what % would be pure WTA fans and how many truly enjoy both tours? All the talk of merging tours, having more mixed tournaments etc. seem predicated on the idea that the vast majority of tennis fans like to follow both tours. Maybe it is true, but I have always wondered what the breakdown would be in real life. I guess we will never know.
 
I should berate myself for taking this thread seriously... Sinner suggested that there could be two women matches during a night session for spectators to give spectators some guarantee.
 
Let's address the elephant in the room here, and I know this is controversial but it's the reality and there is no point beating about the bush just to try an be politically correct. Men's tennis is more entertaining than women's, it always has been and it will probably always be the case.
You are selling a product, you want your clients to get the best, be happy, satisfied and come back for more. Simple as that.
 
Personally I would prefer the men and women to have separate tournaments and let the women see if they deserve equal prizemoney. However, I don't think that is an option. Given we are stuck with the tournament being mixed, what do we do about it?

I think people have misunderstood the problem. There is one match scheduled at night in primetime. For the past few years, that has always been the men's match. The women complain that they don't get night time prime time. What is the solution? If my best of 3 for the first 4 rounds isn't the answer, then how else can you satisfy the women who want night time prime time matches?
 
Women should start playing bo5 sets like men. Already earning unfairly based on this simply fact

Maybe hold slams for men n women separately n they can have all the nite matches on big courts for themselves
 
ALCARAZWON said:
But will any of the slam titles be of value historically after you short their format?
All the slams Nadal-Djokovic-Federer won will be more valuable than the slams won by Fonseca or whoever.
If they reduce slams to best-of-3-sets (for the first 4 rounds) then I hope it only happens after Alcaraz retires...
I'd hate for his slams to be infected by inferiority (n)
Tennis has never had a problem with best-of-5-sets before, so lets not manufacture a problem!
Click to expand...
If changing to best of 3 isn't the answer, what is? All the women pros are complaining and Mauresmo is getting hounded. If you have a better solution, let's hear it.

As for history, that has to be the lamest answer I have ever read. The sport is always changing. Tie breaks didn't used to exist, players didn't used to sit on change of ends, players had gut in their wooden racquets, there were linesmen, balls were white, Wimbledon had a challenge system where the title holder only had to win one match to defend the title, players were all amateur, 3 slams were on grass etc.
 
The reality is that men and women tennis don't generate the same amount of money. This is a well known fact and broadcasters, tournament directors and tennis federations are perfectly aware of this undeniable evidence. In slams there is a great amount of money distribution to ensure some form of equality for the women and for lower ranked players. Without these subsidies, if they'd the shared only the revenues that are effectively generated, they would get way less.
 
ALCARAZWON said:
But will any of the slam titles be of value historically after you short their format?
All the slams Nadal-Djokovic-Federer won will be more valuable than the slams won by Fonseca or whoever.
If they reduce slams to best-of-3-sets (for the first 4 rounds) then I hope it only happens after Alcaraz retires...
I'd hate for his slams to be infected by inferiority (n)
Click to expand...
This is almost certainly wrong. The U.S. Open had a partial best-of-three format for men's matches from 1975 through 1978. This includes all three years on Har-Tru clay and the first year on hard courts at Flushing Meadows. In '75, '76, and '78, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first three rounds. In '77, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first four rounds.

The champions in those years were Orantes, Connors, Vilas, and Connors again. The runners-up were Connors, Borg, Connors again, and Borg again. I have never, not once, heard anyone claim that these slam accomplishments should be downgraded in any way due to the tournament's format. (Of course, some online pundits are simply ignorant of these facts, but that's their problem.) No arguments about "inferior" titles. No over-the-top theses about how to calculate any purported reduction in legacy value.

On a related front, no one (to my knowledge) insists that slams won in the pre-tiebreak era are worth more because they often required longer sets to be won.This applies to both men and women. Margaret Court beat BJK in the 1970 Wimbledon final, 14-12 11-9. Is that title worth more than Wimbledon titles won with sets that included tiebreaks? No. No one believes that. The 1970 final may be deemed a great match by many due to its length and closeness, but the championship obtained is not more valuable than later editions.
 
diggler said:
There has been a lot of discussion about the women's scheduling on the main court. In particular, there is only one match at night in prime time, a men's match. This is preceded by the day session which is 2 women's and a men's.

The reason for this is clear. Men's matches are 5 sets and the length of tennis matches is unpredictable. If you schedule a women's then a men's at night, you could get a 4am finish as happens sometimes in the Aussie Open.

The answer is to make men's matches best of 3 for the first 4 rounds. That would allow you to schedule 2 men's and 2 women's during the day and a mens and a women's at night. Women can get their prime time spot.

Women's quarter finals is typically the second Tuesday. The 2 matches from the top half of the draw can be in the morning session. The two in the bottom half of the draw can be in the evening session. Women's semis can be on Thursday night with the final on Saturday night.

Men's quarter finals which are best of 5 can be 2 on the Tuesday day session and on Wednesday day and night. The semis are Friday day and night, final on Sunday night.

Men

The men will be happy because the lighter workload of best of 3 for 4 rounds is better for their bodies. They also have more energy for the final rounds.

Women

The women get a night time prime time match for the first 8 days, plus 2 quarters, both semis and the final.

Fans

The fans are also winners. The day session gets an extra men's match. The night session gets an extra women's match.
Click to expand...
We will better move women's tennis matches to 1 week after men's than have men play bo3.

No way.
 
These kinds of discussions were getting a lot of prime time in early 2010s when social media was just on the rise, left wing liberalism was the only way forward.

People don't talk like 2010 in 2025.
 
JMR said:
This is almost certainly wrong. The U.S. Open had a partial best-of-three format for men's matches from 1975 through 1978. This includes all three years on Har-Tru clay and the first year on hard courts at Flushing Meadows. In '75, '76, and '78, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first three rounds. In '77, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first four rounds.

The champions in those years were Orantes, Connors, Vilas, and Connors again. The runners-up were Connors, Borg, Connors again, and Borg again. I have never, not once, heard anyone claim that these slam accomplishments should be downgraded in any way due to the tournament's format. (Of course, some online pundits are simply ignorant of these facts, but that's their problem.) No arguments about "inferior" titles. No over-the-top theses about how to calculate any purported reduction in legacy value.

On a related front, no one (to my knowledge) insists that slams won in the pre-tiebreak era are worth more because they often required longer sets to be won.This applies to both men and women. Margaret Court beat BJK in the 1970 Wimbledon final, 14-12 11-9. Is that title worth more than Wimbledon titles won with sets that included tiebreaks? No. No one believes that. The 1970 final may be deemed a great match by many due to its length and closeness, but the championship obtained is not more valuable than later editions.
Click to expand...
Good post. I had forgotten that the USO had utilized a partial Bo3 format in the mid 70s.
 
Many of us on the board are tennis purists and want to see as much tennis as possible. But as the OP also noted, most of us have gotten used to quite a few changes in pro tennis over the years, some affecting the length of matches.

I certainly have nothing against Bo5 matches in slams, but also would not mind the OP's proposal -- the men's draw going to Bo3 in the first three or four rounds. That would alleviate some scheduling concerns for those first three or four rounds, and may lead to more upsets and more urgency in those early rounds as well.
And we'd still get Bo5 for the final three (or four) rounds. Amid tennis seasons that are so long with so many injuries, this could also be a step in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
RaulRamirez said:
Many of us on the board are tennis purists and want to see as much tennis as possible. As the OP noted, most of us have gotten used to quite a few changes in pro tennis over the years, some affecting the length of matches.

I certainly have nothing against Bo5 matches in slams, but also would not mind the OP's proposal -- the men's draw going to Bo3 in the first three or four rounds. That would alleviate some scheduling concerns for those first three or four rounds, and may lead to more upsets and more urgency in those early rounds as well.
And we'd still get Bo5 for the final three (or four) rounds. Amid tennis seasons that are so long with so many injuries, this could also be a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Better not to play at all. Just cash grab from fans and give them nothing in return.
 
Nappa said:
Indeed. They can earn money accordingly to whatever revenue they make and play whenever they want.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get into this debate. I will just say the days of Navratilova advocating bo3 is over. Even masters are 2 weeks now. If men's tennis relegates to bo3 slams, we will see drop off in viewing.
 
JMR said:
This is almost certainly wrong. The U.S. Open had a partial best-of-three format for men's matches from 1975 through 1978. This includes all three years on Har-Tru clay and the first year on hard courts at Flushing Meadows. In '75, '76, and '78, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first three rounds. In '77, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first four rounds.

The champions in those years were Orantes, Connors, Vilas, and Connors again. The runners-up were Connors, Borg, Connors again, and Borg again. I have never, not once, heard anyone claim that these slam accomplishments should be downgraded in any way due to the tournament's format. (Of course, some online pundits are simply ignorant of these facts, but that's their problem.) No arguments about "inferior" titles. No over-the-top theses about how to calculate any purported reduction in legacy value.

On a related front, no one (to my knowledge) insists that slams won in the pre-tiebreak era are worth more because they often required longer sets to be won.This applies to both men and women. Margaret Court beat BJK in the 1970 Wimbledon final, 14-12 11-9. Is that title worth more than Wimbledon titles won with sets that included tiebreaks? No. No one believes that. The 1970 final may be deemed a great match by many due to its length and closeness, but the championship obtained is not more valuable than later editions.
Click to expand...
Absolutely nailed it.
 
I'm for best of three from start to finish at all four majors for the men. It would make for a better player experience and thus a better fan experience and better tournament. Which means it won't happen in my life time.
 
People tune into Men's slam tennis to see the battles of 5 set matches, to see the ups and down, the shocks and the attrition.

Other answers is to make Slams a month long, 2 weeks for the Men and 2 weeks for the Women.
 
big ted said:
they could put on 2 women’s matches if they really wanted to, that’s equivalent of a men’s match
Click to expand...
I think you have misunderstood what the problem is. They currently schedule one men's match in the prime time night position. If you put 2 women's matches in the place of a best of 5 men's, you won't get any men's match in that night time prime spot. Is that what you want?
 
JMR said:
This is almost certainly wrong. The U.S. Open had a partial best-of-three format for men's matches from 1975 through 1978. This includes all three years on Har-Tru clay and the first year on hard courts at Flushing Meadows. In '75, '76, and '78, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first three rounds. In '77, the men's matches were best-of-three for the first four rounds.

The champions in those years were Orantes, Connors, Vilas, and Connors again. The runners-up were Connors, Borg, Connors again, and Borg again. I have never, not once, heard anyone claim that these slam accomplishments should be downgraded in any way due to the tournament's format. (Of course, some online pundits are simply ignorant of these facts, but that's their problem.) No arguments about "inferior" titles. No over-the-top theses about how to calculate any purported reduction in legacy value.

On a related front, no one (to my knowledge) insists that slams won in the pre-tiebreak era are worth more because they often required longer sets to be won.This applies to both men and women. Margaret Court beat BJK in the 1970 Wimbledon final, 14-12 11-9. Is that title worth more than Wimbledon titles won with sets that included tiebreaks? No. No one believes that. The 1970 final may be deemed a great match by many due to its length and closeness, but the championship obtained is not more valuable than later editions.
Click to expand...
Good points especially with the pre tie-break era which I wanted to bring up myself. However, reason that those USO (and also the FO that had Bo3) aren’t seen of less value is that a) they have been some time back so not many do even know that and b) neither Connors nor Orantes nor Vilas or Borg are contender for slam record. If Borg had 24 slams I am sure many would hold it against him in GOAT discussions with Djoko that his 74 and 75 FO had Bo3 rounds. Even better, imagine slams would have changed to that format in 2018 such that Djokovic would have won many of his slams with Bo3 rounds while Fedal didn’t. It would definitely be brought up against him in GOAT discussions. If a younger guy in the future wins ALL his slams under such format I am quite sure that at least for some time nobody would put this record in par with Big3 (maybe after years nobody would care anymore since big three would be from some yore times similar to the ore tie-break era now.
 
Slams are very popular as they are. They are immensely more popular than any other tournament. A slam make as much money as 5 M1000s. Why would you change? You don't kill the goos that lays the golden eggs unless you are a total *****. More match time means more time for ads and more show time in general. But it's also a better guarantee that the best players will get to the last rounds. More quality players in the tournament = more ratings and revenues. Why would you want to change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tacou
Women's Doubles Final Scheduling?
Replies
1
Views
273
ibbi
ibbi
jarko111
Women's matches at USO - best part
Replies
13
Views
873
Fed881981
Fed881981
G
USO Men's Final Not on DirecTV, can't watch live...
Replies
8
Views
1K
borg number one
borg number one
lunaticmochi
  • Poll Poll
Grand Slams should alternate days between men's and women's
Replies
30
Views
3K
Krish872007
Krish872007
N
Why is the WTF schedule so bad ?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Lendl
Lendl
Back
Top