Tennis History “What If’s”

[the AntiPusher]

What if the Ladies played Best of Five sets finals in the slams?

They did try for about a year but it wasn't successful

 

[Front242]

They did try for about a year but it wasn't successful

Ticket sales plummeted as over half the fans killed themselves from the pain of having to endure a 5 set grunt fest.

 

[Jelenafan]

They did try for about a year but it wasn't successful

IIRC the women have not played best of five in a Major for over a century. Certainly not in my lifetime.

They did play best of five for the YE WTA Finals in the 80’s/90’s but its been at least 20 years they've discontinued the format.

 

[Moxie]

IIRC the women have not played best of five in a Major for over a century. Certainly not in my lifetime.

They did play best of five for the YE WTA Finals in the 80’s/90’s but its been at least 20 years they've discontinued the format.

I think they also played Bo5 in Fed Cup, at some point, but I should look that up. As to the "What If's," Front's insulting (and baseless) remark aside, I think it would give women a chance to have more epic matches, and I wish they would. I have put in my vote for Majors to go to Bo3 for all, at least through the 4th round, then Bo5 for all thereafter.

 

[Jelenafan]

I think they also played Bo5 in Fed Cup, at some point, but I should look that up. As to the "What If's," Front's insulting (and baseless) remark aside, I think it would give women a chance to have more epic matches, and I wish they would. I have put in my vote for Majors to go to Bo3 for all, at least through the 4th round, then Bo5 for all thereafter.

From 1973-75 the French Open had best of three for the Mens first two rounds. The USO had it, at least in 1975 for the first round (maybe 2)

 

[Moxie]

From 1973-75 the French Open had best of three for the Mens first two rounds. The USO had it, at least in 1975 for the first round (maybe 2)

Interesting...I didn't know that. I don't know why they don't make the men's Bo3 in early rounds, whatever they do with women's. It's very butch, the Bo5, but it doesn't necessarily make for better tennis. And when weather features, (or smoke, now...YIKES!) it just clogs the schedule for no good reason.

 

[mrzz]

I don't know why they don't make the men's Bo3 in early rounds

The problem with that (apart from making upsets easier to happen) is that it goes against the idea of an "open" tournament, and the majors are the ultimate incarnation of that, as you have (if you count who qualifies for the qualifying tournament) over than 200 players who have a shot. This means that if some sensation comes out of the blue, he has a shot.

I get that one way or another everyone will have still the same chance, but if you make the early rounds shorter, you somehow are considering that they are some sort of formality for the big boys. I think that the idea here is the complete opposite: here is where the big boys can and must show that they are a step ahead of the field. You assume that you need bo5 to sort out who is the best in every single round, even if you get the n#1 against some guy ranked 555.

So I am completely against touching that. Leave it as it is. They are not called majors for nothing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I have no idea why anyone would make men's tennis best of 3 in the early rounds. We've had plenty of classics in the early rounds and straightforward affairs end quickly anyway. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This really seems like a change for the sake of it. There's literally no reason to do it.

 

[Moxie]

The problem with that (apart from making upsets easier to happen) is that it goes against the idea of an "open" tournament, and the majors are the ultimate incarnation of that, as you have (if you count who qualifies for the qualifying tournament) over than 200 players who have a shot. This means that if some sensation comes out of the blue, he has a shot.

I get that one way or another everyone will have still the same chance, but if you make the early rounds shorter, you somehow are considering that they are some sort of formality for the big boys. I think that the idea here is the complete opposite: here is where the big boys can and must show that they are a step ahead of the field. You assume that you need bo5 to sort out who is the best in every single round, even if you get the n#1 against some guy ranked 555.

So I am completely against touching that. Leave it as it is. They are not called majors for nothing.

But here you contradict yourself. You mention that the shorter format tends to allow for more upsets, but then you say that it makes it seem as a formality for the big guys. So, which is it? They're less likely to make the longer, later rounds if they're more likely to be upset early.

 

[mrzz]

But here you contradict yourself. You mention that the shorter format tends to allow for more upsets, but then you say that it makes it seem as a formality for the big guys. So, which is it? They're less likely to make the longer, later rounds if they're more likely to be upset early.

That is an apparent contradiction only. The shorter format, almost by definition, makes it easier for upsets. Making it shorter does not turn it to a formality, it seems like a consequence of the fact that people assume it is a formality. "oh, they are winning it anyway so no point making it bo5", which is actually the ultimate argument for bo3 -- and precisely the part I completely disagree with.

 

[Moxie]

That is an apparent contradiction only. The shorter format, almost by definition, makes it easier for upsets. Making it shorter does not turn it to a formality, it seems like a consequence of the fact that people assume it is a formality. "oh, they are winning it anyway so no point making it bo5", which is actually the ultimate argument for bo3 -- and precisely the part I completely disagree with.

I don't see why that has to be implied. My reason is to make it consistent with women's game. The only reason would be to make a Bo5 format for the women's game. You can't really fit in all the matches if you play Bo5 in the early rounds for both men and women, so the idea is to shorten them all. I agree with Broken that there have been some epic early round matches; there have also been plenty that went 5 and nobody cared. But that's precisely my point about what the women are deprived of: great, epic matches that only Bo5 produces.

 

[mrzz]

I don't see why that has to be implied.

Honestly that is borderline hypocritical -- why in the world one would make only the earlier rounds bo5?

My reason is to make it consistent with women's game.

I find outrageous the idea that one should alter the men's (or women's) game to make it consistent with the women's (or men's). They are played by athletes who generally play in a different tour, with different body limits --- even the audience is not exactly the same. And, if one tour should follow the other (and I don't think either of them should), it would surely had to be the one with less audience following the lead of the one with more audience, but again I don't think either tour/side/whatever should take that into consideration.

there have also been plenty that went 5 and nobody cared.

And would anyone care about them if they were bo3? The point is not just about that, that is quite secondary actually. The whole tournament being bo5 and the whole tournament demanding that kind of commitment, that is what matters.

And honestly probably the players who played the matches cared about it, and they remember they much better than the vast majority of other matches they played. This is why the majors are the majors, because the players care more about it to start with.

 

[Front242]

I think they also played Bo5 in Fed Cup, at some point, but I should look that up. As to the "What If's," Front's insulting (and baseless) remark aside, I think it would give women a chance to have more epic matches, and I wish they would. I have put in my vote for Majors to go to Bo3 for all, at least through the 4th round, then Bo5 for all thereafter.

If they did that then it would belittle the achievement of winning a slam since it's so much harder to win 7 best of set 5 matches.

 

[Moxie]

I offer a solution to "what if" the women played Bo5 and all you guys can think about is how it changes the men's game. Look, I like Bo5. I have no real interest in changing the Majors. I sometimes wish the MS1000s still had the long format in the final. So forget it, then I wish the women would play the whole tournament in the long format, too. @mrzz: one reason I mentioned making men's and women's format equal has to do with all of the conversations about women and equal pay at the Majors around here. One complaint is that they don't play Bo5/do equal work (which I still think is a crap argument) but that's where that came from. Best of 5 for everyone, then.

 

[mrzz]

One complaint is that they don't play Bo5/do equal work (which I still think is a crap argument)

It is a crap argument indeed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't see why that has to be implied. My reason is to make it consistent with women's game. The only reason would be to make a Bo5 format for the women's game. You can't really fit in all the matches if you play Bo5 in the early rounds for both men and women, so the idea is to shorten them all. I agree with Broken that there have been some epic early round matches; there have also been plenty that went 5 and nobody cared. But that's precisely my point about what the women are deprived of: great, epic matches that only Bo5 produces.

Why does it have to be consistent with the women's game though?

 

[Ricardo]

I don't see why that has to be implied. My reason is to make it consistent with women's game. The only reason would be to make a Bo5 format for the women's game. You can't really fit in all the matches if you play Bo5 in the early rounds for both men and women, so the idea is to shorten them all. I agree with Broken that there have been some epic early round matches; there have also been plenty that went 5 and nobody cared. But that's precisely my point about what the women are deprived of: great, epic matches that only Bo5 produces.

Moxie the full of shit feminist squirting again....you ever noticed that men and women have different abilities? or if you like, since you seem to dwell on equality in absolute terms, have the men and women compete the same tour...…...lets see if the women are good enough. If they can't win, piss off. The women are offered protection by doing it easy, so stop whinging.

 

[Ricardo]

It is a crap argument indeed.

Rafa himself said the best when asked about equal prize money, that its about the quality of work. He said male models don't complain about female models being paid more, yet all these women complain a lot of tournaments pay the men more? The higher quality of product is why the men get paid more, pure and simple. People say it's the market, sure but that is just the effect, people naturally pay more for better product....even whinging feminist falls in love with Rafa, a butch last time i checked.

 

[Jelenafan]

Digging deeper

Still Questioning the Best-of-Five Format in Men’s Tennis (Published 2016)

In the 1970s, three of the four Grand Slam events tested a best-of-three format for the men. The debate goes on.

www.google.com

So it appears 3 out of the 4 Majors did playout have 2 out of 3 sets formats for earlier rounds at some point during the 70’s.

The AO apparently had best of three (on grass) in the first round in 73 and 74, and the USO even had best of three until the 4th round in 1977.

“What If” the PTB had continued down the path of best of three for earlier rounds in the Majors?

 

[Moxie]

Digging deeper

Still Questioning the Best-of-Five Format in Men’s Tennis (Published 2016)

In the 1970s, three of the four Grand Slam events tested a best-of-three format for the men. The debate goes on.

www.google.com

So it appears 3 out of the 4 Majors did playout have 2 out of 3 sets formats for earlier rounds at some point during the 70’s.

The AO apparently had best of three (on grass) in the first round in 73 and 74, and the USO even had best of three until the 4th round in 1977.

“What If” the PTB had continued down the path of best of three for earlier rounds in the Majors?

Interesting article, and to know that it has been tried. I think we all agree, and as ex-players say in the article, that Bo5 is what makes the Majors special and difficult. i'll tell you one answer to you "what if" they'd stuck with the Bo3 in early rounds of Majors: Nadal would have lost to Isner in the first round of RG in 2011. Which means Roger would have likely won the title. Surely there are others. But back to Bo5, that's why I think the women should play Bo5 in the Majors, too. They are denied the epic matches, since we all agree that the 5-set format is the real battleground. As to @brokenshoelace's question to me above, about why they should play they same: I believe I answered it, in that it's one of the arguments that detractors use for equal pay, but I do think, much more importantly, it's because they don't get the historic matches that men do. Let's face it. At least 8 of everyone's top 10 greatest matches is going to be a Bo5, which means that only men's matches make the cut. And it's not just because "men play better." The drama comes from lots of different things. But the best-of-five has the highest possibility of drama. Here's another example, though it never would have happened, in the men's game: If the Wimbledon 2008 men's final were best of 3, which it would have been in the women's game, it would have been over in 2 and a bit of a damp squib. This is my point. Let the women play Bo5, too.