What are your views on 5 sets vs 3 sets?

[Michael;Kiwi]

My preference would be for more Best of 5. I would like them at all Masters finals and the ATP Finals. I also would like to see the women play Best of 5 at the Grand Slams and WTA Finals. I truly resent Djokovic's comments about millennialist. Anyone who doesn't enjoy a Best of Five match isn't a true tennis fan. My family is only a casual tennis family. The first match I ever watched was the 2009 Wimbledon final when I was six. This got me both into tennis to play and watch. As a six year old I was able to watch all the way to 16-14 in the fifth. I understand that not everyone's viewing schedule fits with Fice Setters, but unless it's you favorite player or a final you don't usually watch the whole match anyway. You scan between matches to watch the most interesting moments.

 

[isabelle]

best of 5 are more thrilling usually, I regret 5 for Master's final, remember 2005 edition, it was really beautiful

 

[backhandslapper]

Best of five is almost a different sport to me; the one I prefer. Reducing the grand slam matches to best of three would be castration of men's tennis.

I would be all for introducing a fifth set tie-break though.

 

[Fiero425]

Best of five is almost a different sport to me; the one I prefer. Reducing the grand slam matches to best of three would be castration of men's tennis.

I would be all for introducing a fifth set tie-break though.

I've already blogged on the subject and would be quite mournful of losing the drama of BO5 totally! It would devalue the current major wins even more IMO! There's a reason Masters used to be hard to win in previous eras! It's gone to BO3 in finals, which in turn allows the elites a better chance of taking most of them! We've talked about the so called greatness of these "Big 4," but it's a combo of them being a little better than the rest and the accommodating of them with scheduling and shortening of matches to BO3 finals! I think if "play" were sped up a bit, results would change; more blowouts one way or making the lesser player more competitive if they just happen to be more athletic and recover faster from long grueling points! Who says players deserve time to catch their breath? This is a sport; get on with it and I guarantee things would change for the better with the fans! Who cares about the pros being unhappy? They're being compensated hand over fist! Stop kvetchin' and looking for easier wins! :whistle:

 

[backhandslapper]

I've already blogged on the subject and would be quite mournful of losing the drama of BO5 totally! It would devalue the current major wins even more IMO! There's a reason Masters used to be hard to win in previous eras! It's gone to BO3 in finals, which in turn allows the elites a better chance of taking most of them! We've talked about the so called greatness of these "Big 4," but it's a combo of them being a little better than the rest and the accommodating of them with scheduling and shortening of matches to BO3 finals! I think if "play" were sped up a bit, results would change; more blowouts one way or making the lesser player more competitive if they just happen to be more athletic and recover faster from long grueling points! Who says players deserve time to catch their breath? This is a sport; get on with it and I guarantee things would change for the better with the fans! Who cares about the pros being unhappy? They're being compensated hand over fist! Stop kvetchin' and looking for easier wins! :whistle:

Fully agree. I have more or less stopped caring about Masters over the years. Having watched Nalbandian-Federer in Shanghai 2005 and Federer-Nadal in Rome 2006, it just feels like Ramen noodles now.

 

[El Dude]

I actually like the current system. It makes the Slams stand out as more special and intense, and the shorter "samurai fight" style of the Masters provides their own kind of drama. That said, I could see changing the WTF to best of five.

They'll never change the Slams to best of three, but that would be a travesty if they did.

 

[Fiero425]

I actually like the current system. It makes the Slams stand out as more special and intense, and the shorter "samurai fight" style of the Masters provides their own kind of drama. That said, I could see changing the WTF to best of five.

They'll never change the Slams to best of three, but that would be a travesty if they did.

I say the majors and Masters still don't get enough importance when it comes to points! I'm still fuming over Novak dropping down to #2 at the end of 2016 owning 2 majors, 4 Masters, and was a finalist at the USO and YEC! How does it happen even with run of points Murray acquired at 500's that this travesty occurred like 2016 elections here in the States? It's historically mind-blowing IMO! :whistle:

 

[DarthFed]

I actually like the current system. It makes the Slams stand out as more special and intense, and the shorter "samurai fight" style of the Masters provides their own kind of drama. That said, I could see changing the WTF to best of five.

They'll never change the Slams to best of three, but that would be a travesty if they did.

Totally agree with this. Maybe make the WTF finals a best of 5 again and also maybe make all the Olympic matches best of 5 instead of just the finals. Those are the only changes I'd consider. I think keeping MS finals best of 3 is ideal.

 

[Michael;Kiwi]

Thanks for all the opinions. Is it true that no one wants to get rid of Best of 5 at majors. I don't think it will happen, but I am a bit worried.

 

[El Dude]

I wouldn't worry about it. Tennis is a pretty traditional sport and there would be a huge outcry if that was even suggested.

On the other hand, if the "pussification" of younger generations continues, who knows .

 

[Moxie]

I actually like the current system. It makes the Slams stand out as more special and intense, and the shorter "samurai fight" style of the Masters provides their own kind of drama. That said, I could see changing the WTF to best of five.

They'll never change the Slams to best of three, but that would be a travesty if they did.

I agree that it would destroy epic tennis if they lost BO5 completely. I've said this before, but I would not be opposed to Slams being BO3 for women and men to something like the QFs, then BO5 for both men and women. It's unfair to the women to deny them the ability to create the same kind of epic encounters. I wouldn't mind if BO5 were instituted maybe for the last 2 rounds of YEC, or maybe the whole thing. And I sort of agree with @Fiero425's point that if MS1000's finals went back to BO5, then maybe the Big 4 wouldn't own them all. Nadal v. Federer in Rome 2006 (and Nadal v. Coria in 2005) were classics, and that was the one that forced them to change it, because then both Roger and Rafa pulled out of Hamburg, leaving the tournament with what was then nothing, and they complained. I think the women's WTF could also incorporate some BO5, too. I wouldn't make 250s or 500s BO5, though.

 

[Vince Evert]

Best of three sets for Davis Cup rubbers except for the final. Only the GS should be Bo5 but with Final set tiebreaker. There is a lot more Tennis today than say 20 years ago.

 

[Fiero425]

Best of three sets for Davis Cup rubbers except for the final. Only the GS should be Bo5 but with Final set tiebreaker. There is a lot more Tennis today than say 20 years ago.

Beside the obvious superior athletes of today, another reason matches are lasting longer is due to the players allowed all kinds of breaks! Not just the 25-30 sec. clock, but MTO's, allowed to leave the court after a set; it's ridiculous! If play was continuous and sped up, more than likely one player would start to weaken and the better athlete wins! Just because Rafa and Nole are war horses now and can take people to the limit, if they weren't permitted so much time scratchin' their arses, maybe these contests would end before 3 hours! :whistle:

 

[Front242]

Beside the obvious superior athletes of today, another reason matches are lasting longer is due to the players allowed all kinds of breaks! Not just the 25-30 sec. clock, but MTO's, allowed to leave the court after a set; it's ridiculous! If play was continuous and sped up, more than likely one player would start to weaken and the better athlete wins! Just because Rafa and Nole are war horses now and can take people to the limit, if they weren't permitted so much time scratchin' their arses, maybe these contests would end before 3 hours! :whistle:

Doubtful that they'd be taking people to the limit if they were actually made to adhere to the rules. In the case of all slow players (Nadal, Del Potro, Isner and Djokovic to name a few; although there's really zero reason for a serve bot like Isner to take forever between points) they need to take ages to piss their opponents off as it's the main reason for their "edge".

Make them play by the same rules everyone else does and they don't get enough time to focus or get their breath back. Fuck 'em. Shouldn't be allowed get away with it and the gutless umpires are 100% to blame. Even the recent shot clocks have been useless as they start the clock only around 5-6 seconds after the point ends.

 

[Jelenafan]

God, I'm dating myself but as a wee lad I remember when Forest Hills first switched to hard tru clay they played the first week of the mens singles best of three.

I think the 4th round they switched to best of five.

Can't remember how long that lasted at the USO, but there is a precedent.

ETA: Looked it up and yes, it was 1975 and also the French Open that year the first few rounds were best of 3.

 

[Horsa]

To save arguments, why not put all matches on the same number of sets & even it out by going straight down the middle & having 4 sets?

 

[Fiero425]

God, I'm dating myself but as a wee lad I remember when Forest Hills first switched to hard tru clay they played the first week of the mens singles best of three.

I think the 4th round they switched to best of five.

Can't remember how long that lasted at the USO, but there is a precedent.

ETA: Looked it up and yes, it was 1975 and also the French Open that year the first few rounds were best of 3.

This is why the US Open is in disrepute to me; so many scandals I could write a freakin' book! That thing with BO3 for early rounds almost cost them Borg in '76 who was a notoriously slow starter! It was a 2nd Rd'r and this format allowed some guy with a notebook on him to take it to MP before Borg came storming back to win in a 3rd set TB! I think his name was Jaime Fillol from South America somewhere; maybe Chile! The USO also experimented with BO3 when they arrived at Flushing, not going to BO5 in early rounds until the following year in '79! IIRC, they should be dedicating the new roof! Let's see if it helps with the frequent scheduling nightmares! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

To save arguments, why not put all matches on the same number of sets & even it out by going straight down the middle & having 4 sets?

You have to have an odd number. Four could create a draw.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I agree that it would destroy epic tennis if they lost BO5 completely. I've said this before, but I would not be opposed to Slams being BO3 for women and men to something like the QFs, then BO5 for both men and women. It's unfair to the women to deny them the ability to create the same kind of epic encounters. I wouldn't mind if BO5 were instituted maybe for the last 2 rounds of YEC, or maybe the whole thing. And I sort of agree with @Fiero425's point that if MS1000's finals went back to BO5, then maybe the Big 4 wouldn't own them all. Nadal v. Federer in Rome 2006 (and Nadal v. Coria in 2005) were classics, and that was the one that forced them to change it, because then both Roger and Rafa pulled out of Hamburg, leaving the tournament with what was then nothing, and they complained. I think the women's WTF could also incorporate some BO5, too. I wouldn't make 250s or 500s BO5, though.

I like your opinion not only for the balanced ATP competition, but also for bringing the WTA competition in-line with ATP. The talk about equal wages in ATP & WTA continues because if women get the same wages now, they should also play the same tennis as men do, i.e. best of five at all majors. So, to be more precise, if you want that MS1000's finals go back to BO5, then so should WTA Premier finals.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

This is why the US Open is in disrepute to me; so many scandals I could write a freakin' book! That thing with BO3 for early rounds almost cost them Borg in '76 who was a notoriously slow starter! It was a 2nd Rd'r and this format allowed some guy with a notebook on him to take it to MP before Borg came storming back to win in a 3rd set TB! I think his name was Jaime Fillol from South America somewhere; maybe Chile! The USO also experimented with BO3 when they arrived at Flushing, not going to BO5 in early rounds until the following year in '79! IIRC, they should be dedicating the new roof! Let's see if it helps with the frequent scheduling nightmares! :whistle:

So what's your point? Hard to read it. Maybe you don;t like that BO3 in early rounds would "cost them 'Borg-like' players"? So what? If Borg-likes cannot adjust their playing to this format, other players who can, will come in. Tennis as a sport does not lose anything.