Is there a case for three-set Grand Slam matches for men

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/26465202

I was very much against it for years but I think Maria makes a good point. With the way tennis has gone over the last few years, and seeing so many matches being turned around the road runners thanks to 5 sets, I thought it would be good if those had been over bo3 as we would have had more upsets.

Having said that, it seems the trend is now reversing as the attacking players mature and can inflict scars to those physical players on the way to grand slams giving possibly an advantage to those able to win points more easily. As Dimi, Stan, Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych and others improve Nadal, Murray and Djoko get stretch more arriving pretty tired at the business end of Grand Slams. We saw Djoko lose Wimbledon and Nadal probably losing the AO down to physical exhaustion. More so those physical players seem to finally feel the toll of those years of long rallies so changing the rule now would be in my opinion the wrong move.

Besides we know that to have shorter rallies, it's pretty easy, they just need to change the balls. This way we would have better quality slam matches. Not much to be done but it needs to be done.

No, but for me 5 setters bring so many twists and turns... makes Grand Slams stand out.

Julia Santamaria wrote:No, but for me 5 setters bring so many twists and turns... makes Grand Slams stand out.

many twists and turns but before 2014 it has simply been the fittest player to win slams. There has been much better shot makers than those guys, in style, skills and creativity yet the winner was the one with the better lungs and bigger margins which of course made the difference over 5 sets.

So at least half of the crowd has been robbed by making the game so unbalanced towards the fitter guys at the expense of the more talented ones.

No. Three set Slam matches would be an absolute disaster.

Difficult question, as there are pros and cons for both scenarios.

Ideally, it stays as it is, but the balls get changed. I said in the IW thread that slowed courts seem to be now working for shot-makers and against road-runners, as most of the tour seem to have caught up physically and fitness wise, so now have more time on their shots, and they are loving it. What an unexpected twist in the tale!

That also explains the rising number of players over 30 as well as recent success of SBH.

FedererKing wrote:No.  Three set Slam matches would be an absolute disaster.

But Federer would probably have won 4 or 5 extra slams...considering almost all his slams were won quite convincingly while he lost tons over 5 sets because of tiredness.

noleisthebest wrote:Difficult question, as there are pros and cons for both scenarios.

Ideally, it stays as it is, but the balls get changed. I said in the IW thread that slowed courts seem to be now working for shot-makers and against road-runners, as most of the tour seem to have caught up physically and fitness wise, so now have more time on their shots, and they are loving it. What an unexpected twist in the tale!

That also explains the rising number of players over 30 as well as recent success of SBH.

Yes but Nadal is still the one who makes most of this gruelling format. He would have lost all his Wimby I believe had it been over 3 sets. Anyway I like the bo5 format for sure....just making it shorter rallies would be great!

It seems there are several solutions to the problem, but nobody is interested in doing something about it.
Brad Drewitt was great before he sadly died, he was the one who pushed for 25 sec rule to be implemented during Nadal's 7 months absence.
And it did make a difference.
3 sets would definitely give younger players a chance, as well as those who don't rely on arm-wrestling style of tennis.

But even that would not be the proper way...because conditions really need to be faster to allow players with skill and talent to shine, and us fans to enjoy their tennis.

Last night, it took Fed all his talent plus his big racquet to dispatch baseline loving Haas...he really went for his FHs, but you rarely had that old feeling of him whipping opponents into ball chasing frenzy with the speed of his shots.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Difficult question, as there are pros and cons for both scenarios.

Ideally, it stays as it is, but the balls get changed. I said in the IW thread that slowed courts seem to be now working for shot-makers and against road-runners, as most of the tour seem to have caught up physically and fitness wise, so now have more time on their shots, and they are loving it. What an unexpected twist in the tale!

That also explains the rising number of players over 30 as well as recent success of SBH.

Yes but Nadal is still the one who makes most of this gruelling format. He would have lost all his Wimby I believe had it been over 3 sets. Anyway I like the bo5 format for sure....just making it shorter rallies would be great!

Not sure I agree with you on that one Tenez. Wimbledon 2008 comes to mind. That final was epic. It would not have been had it been an easy 64-64 victory for Nadal and we would not have seen the 76-76-77 almost come back from Fed... Balls being faster though would have made it a better final for Fed and might have taken 4-5 sets anyways but would have been much easier on Fed's physical level...

I was talking before the finals (most of the time). In many Nadal's slams he happened to be 2 sets down or 2 sets to one down. Wimby 2008 I was wrong cause that the Wimby slam where he did not happen to be 2 sets down (before the final) but he was pretty close v Gulbis as he was a set and break down. The 3rd went to a TB.

But in many other slams he was in trouble in the earlier rounds.