Scrap the five-setter?

[traveller7]

It has come to my attention that in the last week or so the debate about whether 5 set matches should be scrapped has reared up again with a 50/50 response from ex players etc in favour or against.
Would it make the tournament easier? Do you think it would be the death of Grand Slam tennis?
I would love to know your thoughts and the result of the poll and I will write an article about it on my blog with the results.
Gratitude in advance for your help.

[Hawkeye]

It's what a grand slam is all about. And that's beside the equal prize money at slams if women play 5 sets! :big grin:

[pabbers]

Yes it's what makes a slam different from the rest and worth so many points IMHO. Maybe the women should play 5 sets too rather than men play 3 :getcoat:

[Alis]

I think a number of the women have said that they would be quite happy to play 5 sets.

[supergran]

5 sets is what makes a Major special. The women should play five sets also as they get equal prize money.

[Linda]

I think they should keep the 5 sets at slams; that's what makes it special. And the women should play 5 sets as well, if they are to deserve their equal pay.

[DrewZiph]

Never. I could maybe abide 5th set tiebreaks, but no more than that!

[RoastLamb]

Don't want the tiebreaks either. Love also how the doubles is also played best of five with no tb in the last set. And Mixed best of three with no tb. This is the grandest slam of them all so I say keep it as it is.

[Elenive]

Major tournaments are major because they are harder to win. They are more prestigious, they have more prize money, they have more attention, they are worth more ranking points: They are all these things because they are DIFFERENT in the fact that they are HARDER than all of the other tournaments, notably Masters 1000s.

They need to stay 5 sets as per tradition, no debate.

[xenon21]

No way Jose! The GSs are survival of the fittest and the best! Else it might as well be just an ordinary masters tournament!The difference is it has to be tougher to win a grand slam! Of course it's not easy and nor should it be!

[Helen40]

Well reading through this, it seems we all want five sets for both men and women, which I thoroughly agree to. It would make the women's games sooo much more exiting too.

What a flop that women's final was, it might have been so much better. Sabine had started a comeback too late, and might have made a better job of it had it been to five.

[JAMES4578]

The problem is that the tournament would never be completed in two weeks if both men and women played the best of 5,only possible solution would be have early rounds best of three in both competitions and then best of 5 from say last 16 but don't see that happening and it would take a while for women to become accustomed to the longer format,though the final of the season ending championships used to be best of 5.Difficulty with best of 3 for men in any slam match though is that big servers could create more upsets. I don't see anything changing. of course Andy could have lost against Verdasco had that not been best of 5,though not necessarily the case as mentaility different in best of 3 but was great to see him fighting back and his supreme conditioning shining through.

[Hawkeye]

Surely the answer would be to start play on all courts earlier in the day?

[patmoren]

I would certainly rather see the 5sets retained and that women play 5 sets in slams. Would obviously need some rearranging but would have thought it was doable. A 5 set match is such a different match, with different skills being employed. Makes the players think more about the game they are playing.

[pabbers]

If women played 5 sets they may have to rejig the format and perhaps separate out the ladies' and mens' tournaments and have it take place over 2.5 or 3 weeks instead.

[traveller7]

Yes I think 5 sets for women would completely blast the format and not the issue in debate.

[supergran]

If women played 5 sets they may have to rejig the format and perhaps separate out the ladies' and mens' tournaments and have it take place over 2.5 or 3 weeks instead.Well, I certainly realise that and know it wouldn't work but just having a little dig at equal pay for unequal labour.:big grin:

[traveller7]

All very interesting thoughts and opinions here thanks.
SG I agree about the equal pay although feel guilty for doing so as I feel women should get equal pay in the workplace :facepalm:

[pabbers]

Well, I certainly realise that and know it wouldn't work but just having a little dig at equal pay for unequal labour.:big grin:

I was replying to PatM's post.

I agree about the pay. Should be equal pay for equal work.........how the women got away with it (and I'm a woman!) I'll never know!

[RoastLamb]

Not sure about 5 sets for women. Maybe for the final.

[cazza99]

Yup maybe women should just play the final in 5 sets. Or possibly the semis too.

[Linda]

Goodness! Someone has now voted 'yes' to the question!

[dewster99]

5 sets show the true calibre of players hence why you get less upsets at slams (not including this years wimbly as that was ridiculous). Scrapping that could lead to lesser players winning slam through a few lucky wins that will never be repeated and that makes a mockery of the tournaments

[RoastLamb]

If it was best of three then oor Andy wouldn't have gotten past the 1/4 final! :shocked:

[david1610]

Goodness! Someone has now voted 'yes' to the question!
It's the exception that proves the rule! (An often misunderstood quotation because you need the exception!)