For Drama And Excitement Five Beats Three

For drama and Excitement five sets beats three. Five set matches make the slams special for the men and perhaps the three set formula limits the relative appeal of women's matches at slams. If the 2008 Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal had been best of three it would have been a routine 6-4, 6-4 win to Nadal! Maybe Masters finals have lost some of their appeal since they were reduced to three sets?

Douglas Perry makes his case for best of five set matches in the link below. Here is an extract.

The greatest thing to happen to professional tennis in the past few decades has been the rivalry between Federer and Nadal -- no sane tennis fan would argue otherwise. These two great champions, when they play one another, transcend the sport, drawing in viewers who otherwise wouldn't bother to pay attention to tennis. Federer and Nadal have played eight major finals against one another -- including what is widely considered the greatest match of all time, the 2008 Wimbledon final, which went five sets.

But the rivalry would be a much poorer thing if it only existed at the majors. Fortunately, that isn't the case. In the 2005 final of the Miami Masters, the up-and-coming, teenaged Nadal won the first two sets over the dominant World No. 1, shocking the crowd into befuddled silence. Adjusting, Federer then slowly reeled in the youngster, knocking off the last three sets to take the title. The next year, in Rome, the two combined for an endlessly thrilling, topsy-turvy match on Rafa's beloved clay. Federer held a match point in the fifth set, but he couldn't get over the finish line. These two matches helped establish this great rivalry, and they continue to serve as two of its tentpoles. They loom large in the sport's recent collective memory.

And what about Masters finals over the past seven years, when it's been best-of-three sets? As Federer aged out of his prime, Novak Djokovic was supposed to succeed him as Nadal's chief rival. In many ways, he has -- Djokovic has just replaced Nadal as the number-one player in the world. But even though Djokovic and Nadal have met in many hard-fought, entertaining Masters finals, none of them stick in the memory for more than a few weeks. Think back: can you remember their Rome final in 2009? How about their Monte Carlo final in 2012? Best-of-three sets simply do not afford the drama and tension necessary for memorable greatness. It is a key reason the WTA struggles to raise the profile of the women's game.

When was the last compelling women's final at Wimbledon? I'd have to go all the way back to 2005, when Venus Williams topped Lindsay Davenport 9-7 in the third set. This year, Petra Kvitova blasted Eugenie Bouchard 6-3, 6-0. It was an impressive performance from Kvitova, but a snooze. The year before, Sabine Lisicki choked on the moment and fell to underdog Marion Bartoli 6-1, 6-4.

It didn't necessarily have to be this way. I think there's a good chance those last two Wimbledon finals would have become interesting if they'd been best-of-five sets. Bouchard is a fighter. Embarrassed at getting blanked in the second set, she would have adjusted her game face and worked hard to make a match of it. Who's to say she wouldn't have? And Lisicki was finally getting her nerves under control near the end of the second set against Bartoli. If she'd had a third set to find her confidence, I wouldn't have bet against a five-set instant classic. That's just hopeful guesswork, of course. We'll never know. We have to accept the uninteresting matches we were given.

http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2014/08/proof_the_new_york_times_is_wr.html

In ten years, "the greatest thing to happen to professional tennis in the past few decades" have in fact only played a 5 set match on five occasions.

In this great "rivalry", the head-to-head over Bo5 is 12-3 to Nadal.

Beneath the mawkish Fedal sentiment though, there's a kernel of a good point. The WTA are definitely at a disadvantage not playing best of 5 at slams. Less drama, less attention, less chance of becoming truly popular.

Its a tough one. Mens tennis has to remain best of 5 in the slams imo. Its a true test and it lessens the risk of an upset.

I personally would like to see the ladies matches best of 5 from QF onwards. That seems to me to give the chance to properly test out the top players without impacting significantly on the time needed to complete the tournament. The risk though with that would be that "equality" arguments would then be used to change the mens event in the same way.

It's an interesting proposition BS, which somehow follows tennis history: at least for USO, '75 to '79 editions had BO3 for R1, R2 and R3 (even R4 in '77)
Apparently US Open is the place to try new things, so why not start with a final in BO5, and then from QF onwards, and after a couple years BO5 all along! (and with 5th set tie-break)

It's an interesting point.

There have definitely been some compelling women's slam finals in recent years, just not necessarily at Wimbledon. Of course, if you don't like women's tennis they won't have been compelling, but then that would be unchanged by making them BO5.

I have seen some dismiss any talk of changing some women's matches at BO5 as being sexist or an attack on women's tennis, but as with this article, it is possible to debate it without such an agenda.

We all still watch all the boring BO3 matches in the Masters events though don't we? Hard to believe we actually enjoy any of them though

side note re Masters/Master Series: what was the reason officially given to change the finals to BO3 instead of BO5 from 2008?

The switch for Masters was, I think, to protect the players from wear and tear.
Can't see the women ever playing five-set matches. OK, some women's matches are over in a flash. But there have been some longies of late - three-set matches which have gone on for three hours.
Interestingly, the 2005 Wimbledon's women's final was longer than the men's. Fed polished off Roddick fairly quickly but Davenport and Venus slugged it out for 2hrs 45 mins, with Venus saving an MP and finally winning 9-7 in the third.

Could argue that a downside of bo5 is a reduction in upsets.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have got out of jail many times by winning the last two sets.

Would they be such big stars with such big earning potential if their slams were bo3 like the women's?

For instance, if slams were best of 3, Federer would not have a career slam, Nadal would not have had a 3-slam year in 2010 and would have gone out in the first round of RG11, and Djokovic wouldn't have won Wimbledon this year or AO12.

And we'd still be waiting for a British Wimbledon champion.

This is why the prize money debate gets so knotty. Women are not as big a draw to the public and therefore do not generate as much money. So it's not 'fair' that they earn the same prize money.

But nor is it 'fair' that they are not allowed the opportunity to play best of 5 and have the chance of creating classic matches and becoming more recognisable, which in turn leads to becoming more popular with public.

Modric will always put in a shift in defence, and Kroos is normally rather deep. It's obviously not ideal, but you have to find space for James, Benzene, Bale and Ronaldo. As for the £65m... I'm going out on a limb and saying that was purely a book balancing exercise. We aren't buying anybody with that money

Wrong thread.... oops... carry on

I'll be parked in a 1982 Ford Cortina, in the picnic area car park, away from the streetlights, at 8pm. You can call me "Hans".

Safety word is 'parsnip'.

Wrong thread.... oops... carry on

Classic bruce