Maybe the men should play best of three [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Maybe the men should play best of three

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 01:11 AM
I know the purists will be against this, but let's give it some thought. Am i the only one who is sick of the old I'm-a-break-down-in-the-fourth-but-up-a-set-i'll-strategically-tank ploy? Youzhny is well on his way to doing just that as I write this. I'm just not sure five sets brings out the best tennis in guys. In best of three, each set becomes much more important, so less tanking to conserve energy. In fact, less conserving energy at all. And less TV time eaten up that could be better served on showing more matches.

I suspect some people think this idea is blasphemy, but I'm really not sure it's as bad as we all think.

Port_Power
09-04-2004, 01:19 AM
5 setters for slams is the way.Theres been a lot of great comeback stories in the slams from 2 sets down..henman did it twice or thrice in F.O this year i think.As far as tanking the 4th set goes..he is conserving energy u can say but nalbandian is outplaying him..oh hey, he just got a break back..he is fighting

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 01:35 AM
I do think that this idea is blasphemy. Yeah, tanking in the fourth set happens. So does tanking in three set matches when you get down in the second. No, it may not be super duper common since there is less margin for error, but tanking in the fourth isn't exactly something that every other player does either. Also... Mikhail is injured. For all we know he was told to take it easy for a few games by the trainer in order to loosen up.

That said, you're entitled to your opinion, oh tough one!

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 01:36 AM
Also.. I am not getting htis match, but I'm not convinced that Misha tanked hte fourth. If he did, why bother breaking back at 2-5?? He could have served first in the fifth if he didn't do that.

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 01:37 AM
5 setters for slams is the way.Theres been a lot of great comeback stories in the slams from 2 sets down..henman did it twice or thrice in F.O this year i think.As far as tanking the 4th set goes..he is conserving energy u can say but nalbandian is outplaying him..oh hey, he just got a break back..he is fighting

That match was just an example. It matters not whether it's actually true of that match.

There are great three set comebacks too.

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 01:37 AM
Also.. I am not getting htis match, but I'm not convinced that Misha tanked hte fourth. If he did, why bother breaking back at 2-5?? He could have served first in the fifth if he didn't do that.

Trying to slow him down!

But again, it doesn't matter whether he's doing it in that specific instance.

Port_Power
09-04-2004, 01:40 AM
There are great three set comebacks too but coming back from 2 sets down is a tad tougher than being down a set..imagine hewitt/federer in DC.. now that was some comeback eh?

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 01:41 AM
I do think that this idea is blasphemy. Yeah, tanking in the fourth set happens. So does tanking in three set matches when you get down in the second. No, it may not be super duper common since there is less margin for error, but tanking in the fourth isn't exactly something that every other player does either. Also... Mikhail is injured. For all we know he was told to take it easy for a few games by the trainer in order to loosen up.

That said, you're entitled to your opinion, oh tough one!

I understand that making tennis fans embrace change is one of the world's hardest tasks, but I think it's gotta go in this direction eventually. Remember, there was a hell of a lot of objection to the tiebreak too. But the tiebreak and playing three sets, unlike bad ideas like 4 game sets, doesn't alter the heart of the game, and actually helps for practical reasons.

Port_Power
09-04-2004, 01:45 AM
But the tiebreak and playing three sets, unlike bad ideas like 4 game sets, doesn't alter the heart of the game, and actually helps for practical reasons.
I think thats what makes the grand slams a bit different. Winning a Best of 5 set match is a lot harder than winning a best of 3, plus u gotta string a 7 match winning streak to win it which is asking a lot physcially! i also think that all TMS finals should be 5 setters also. I dont know but it just seems right

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 01:46 AM
There are great three set comebacks too but coming back from 2 sets down is a tad tougher than being down a set..imagine hewitt/federer in DC.. now that was some comeback eh?

I .... am not sure it is tougher to come from 2 sets down than one.

ktwtennis
09-04-2004, 01:51 AM
I think best of five should be from the quarters on...

Port_Power
09-04-2004, 01:52 AM
Um ok..thats your opinion but..i think its asking for more physically to come back from 2 sets down..i mean anyone can have a fluke first set and then come down to earth. But stringing 2 good sets together against a top player is that much harder.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 01:53 AM
I think best of five should be from the quarters on...
mixing up the tournament like that is absolutely ridiculous, imo. No offense ;)

What's so special about the quarters? Why not do it in the fourth round? or the semis? or the final? Seems a bit arbitrary to me. "Gee, the quarters sound like a good round to all but start a new tournament. RAH"

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 01:57 AM
See, my favourite moments in tennis (whether they be painful or happy) have come from 5 set matches.

Goran vs Pat at Wimbledon. The best slam final that I've seen.
Coria vs Gaudio at RG... that was something alright.
etc.

In my opinion the current system is not broken. Somehow, "some people tank" isn't a good enough reason to me to change it. It's not a matter of being afraid of change, it's a matter of seeing it as totally an completely unnecessary in this case.

Neely
09-04-2004, 02:10 AM
Why not do it in the fourth round?
I personally like 4th round best... :angel: :p

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 02:12 AM
Um ok..thats your opinion but..i think its asking for more physically to come back from 2 sets down..i mean anyone can have a fluke first set and then come down to earth. But stringing 2 good sets together against a top player is that much harder.

No, it's not my opinion. It's my opinion based on facts. Obviously it asks more physically to play 5 sets, and obviously it is more difficult to win 3 sets in a row rather than just two. But in a three set match, you don't have the luxury of losing two sets. That means if you lose the first, you have pull things together sooner.

Port_Power
09-04-2004, 02:15 AM
Based on facts? um.. no one agreed with you yet PLUS... it rules out one fluke set win..anyone can win a fluke set against anybody.Anyone can play a blinder for 30 minutes

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 02:16 AM
See, my favourite moments in tennis (whether they be painful or happy) have come from 5 set matches.

Goran vs Pat at Wimbledon. The best slam final that I've seen.
Coria vs Gaudio at RG... that was something alright.
etc.

In my opinion the current system is not broken. Somehow, "some people tank" isn't a good enough reason to me to change it. It's not a matter of being afraid of change, it's a matter of seeing it as totally an completely unnecessary in this case.

But it's NOT unnecessary!

Television has been clamouring for this for quite a while. And let's face it, it would be beneficial for them. Furthermore, it would lighten schedule loads.

But I made my first post primarily about tanking because you know that already. That's established. That is why I devoted more space to making the case that it might actually improve play.

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 02:17 AM
Based on facts? um.. no one agreed with you yet.

Other people's assent = facts?

It is a fact that you have less time to rally in a best of 3 match. Case closed. That is a fact I base my opinion on. Get it?

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 02:18 AM
it rules out one fluke set win..anyone can win a fluke set against anybody.Anyone can play a blinder for 30 minutes

You should put this differently so it makes sense.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:18 AM
Best of three is far too short for a sport this intense. I personally find the women's best of 3 short enough as it is. That's why a woman's Grand Slam final mostly turns out to be a joke.

Port_Power
09-04-2004, 02:19 AM
Well said goenzitz :D cheers mate

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:22 AM
Well said goenzitz :D cheers mate

Sarcasm?

Also the women wanted equal prize money for the Grand Slams didn't they. They'll get it - if they play best-of-5 sets.

No-one wants to see a Final where Serena Williams gets £400,000+ for a 6-3 6-3 win for crying out loud.

Port_Power
09-04-2004, 02:24 AM
Not sarcasm by any means..most of the women early rounders are a joke too.. most winning results by top seeds are 6-0 6-2 or easy straight sets even

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 02:26 AM
Sarcasm?

Also the women wanted equal prize money for the Grand Slams didn't they. They'll get it - if they play best-of-5 sets.

No-one wants to see a Final where Serena Williams gets £400,000+ for a 6-3 6-3 win for crying out loud.

This has nothing to do with women's tennis, nor is that ever an applicable argument to the prize money debate.

You say they need 5 sets for a sport that intense .... maybe, maybe not. I'm arguing that the tennis would become a lot more intense given less room for error. But even if we discount my theory, it truly infringes on what TV can show these days, and the more players/matches that get on TV, the better for tennis.

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 02:27 AM
Not sarcasm by any means..most of the women early rounders are a joke too.. most winning results by top seeds are 6-0 6-2 or easy straight sets even

Feel free to create your own thread dealing with women's tennis.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:28 AM
Not sarcasm by any means..most of the women early rounders are a joke too.. most winning results by top seeds are 6-0 6-2 or easy straight sets even

Thanks...

Actually the standard of women's tennis *is* getting better believe it not, Serena and Venus are not running their 3rd/4th/QF/SF opponents over 6-1 6-3 all the time. But then again this is only due to the Russian onslaughts, and for the others it hasn't improved THAT much. God I wish Martina Hingis was still around........

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:34 AM
You say they need 5 sets for a sport that intense .... maybe, maybe not. I'm arguing that the tennis would become a lot more intense given less room for error. But even if we discount my theory, it truly infringes on what TV can show these days, and the more players/matches that get on TV, the better for tennis.

Okay I'll drop the woman's tennis issue. Fair enough.

As for the men's best of 3-sets match, it may or may not make it intense. There are players out there who are slow starters, and it definitely lowers the chances of a comeback.

5-sets is also a good test of a player's stamina and mentality as well, something I love seeing.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 03:05 AM
Can anyone remmember great 3 set matches from this year? I can recall 2 or 3 and I certainly wished they kept going.
I can recall at least a dozen great 5 set matches from this year.
I have never heard the players complain about 5 set slams, so why dont fans just enjoy the extra tennis?

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 03:56 AM
Can anyone remmember great 3 set matches from this year? I can recall 2 or 3 and I certainly wished they kept going.
I can recall at least a dozen great 5 set matches from this year.
I have never heard the players complain about 5 set slams, so why dont fans just enjoy the extra tennis?

Nobody is arguing it's a problem for the players.

I am sort of arguing that the "extra tennis" might be worse due to the law of diminishing returns.

The argument is that play would be better with three sets, more intense, to borrow a phrase. But even if that isn't so, and I don't have facts to prove it, you have to take into account television's rightful hatred of the 5 setter. 5 sets was better when market exposure wasn't so important to a game's growth. But this isn't the 60's, and players don't barnstorm around the country anymore. We need more tv, and more players on tv. Three sets allows that to happen.

2Tough4Men
09-04-2004, 03:57 AM
Okay I'll drop the woman's tennis issue. Fair enough.

As for the men's best of 3-sets match, it may or may not make it intense. There are players out there who are slow starters, and it definitely lowers the chances of a comeback.

5-sets is also a good test of a player's stamina and mentality as well, something I love seeing.

Yes, 5 sets is a better test of stamina.

And I do concede that it may or may not improve quality of play.

But what of TV?

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 03:58 AM
Yes, 5 sets is a better test of stamina.

And I do concede that it may or may not improve quality of play.

But what of TV?

Well obviously the people who dislike tennis will whine, and the people who do will love it...

But for TV schdulers of course they like shorter matches...

WyveN
09-04-2004, 05:37 AM
I am sort of arguing that the "extra tennis" might be worse due to the law of diminishing returns.


That is not really true, for example in the Roddick v Safin match at AO the best tennis was in the 5th and 4th sets.


The argument is that play would be better with three sets, more intense, to borrow a phrase.


Players would be more cautious and a match could be over before the players really get going.

But even if that isn't so, and I don't have facts to prove it, you have to take into account television's rightful hatred of the 5 setter. 5 sets was better when market exposure wasn't so important to a game's growth. But this isn't the 60's, and players don't barnstorm around the country anymore. We need more tv, and more players on tv. Three sets allows that to happen.

I don't know the situation in other countries but in Australia there is 24 hour coverage of the US open and you get to see plenty of players. In America it seems that even during 3 set TMS tournaments it is still the same 3 or 4 players being shown, and if there is extra time to fill? More often then not it is a replay of those 3 or 4 players.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 06:10 AM
When you talk about television.... are you just talking US television? Seeing as that is all we get tennis-wise in Canada (save two weeks of the year)... that's what I think about when you say that :p

In which case, fine, let the USTA make their tournament a three set affair and leave the rest alone :p

heya
09-04-2004, 06:13 AM
Women are rewarded as much as men for playing short matches & the media praises them like they're as good as men.

In 3 setters, older guys can win tight matches. i.e. Costa
IMO, in 5 setters, Baldy, Fed Noserer & Hewitt need easy draws/an opponent's misfortune (fatigue from playing marathon matches, lack of practice on Center Court, injury) to win.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 07:25 AM
In 3 setters, older guys can win tight matches. i.e. Costa
IMO, in 5 setters, Baldy, Fed Noserer & Hewitt need easy draws/an opponent's misfortune (fatigue from playing marathon matches, lack of practice on Center Court, injury) to win.


For example Roddick's escape against Nalbandian last year?

Ferrero Forever
09-04-2004, 07:44 AM
i think it's good the way it is. I think that the slams should be best of five because of some great comebacks and it's a test of physical endurance. But i also think that the majority of matches should be 3 setters so not to exhaust the players. I do agree though that the 5 setters can interrupt other important matches, but so can the 3 setters. I didn't get to see Juanwui lose to Koubek because they were busy focusing on Hewitt and the wta players. I don't think we're ever gonna be happy with the tv coverage (that is unless you live in australia and like the aussie players)

Ferrero Forever
09-04-2004, 07:45 AM
*juanqui, lol

PerezRoldan
09-04-2004, 08:41 AM
I am still awaiting for convincing arguments for this change, and no I haven't seen anything so far, if something needs to change, there should be viable option which doesn't take away aspects of the game.

In which case, fine, let the USTA make their tournament a three set affair and leave the rest alone :p

This has been the best idea so far, the idea that the USTA can make their Slam the best of 3 sets and stuff the rest.

Also they should just withdraw from the tour and make it just a US series, only open to Americans and then call it a world championship of tennis.

heya
09-04-2004, 10:29 AM
For example Roddick's escape against Nalbandian last year?

Well, Nalbandian couldn't win this year and you complain about 1 point in a 5 setter? He played very well last year, but it takes 2 guys to decide the outcome.
Has David come back from 2 sets down against Youzhny like Andy did? No.
Did David play well at Toronto '02, Montreal '03 and Houston?
Oh, you're unbiased. Funny how Fed and Agassi benefitted from others' health disadvantages, but Roddick's THE one with luck.

David didn't play at Basel and Coria won.
Roddick was terribly fat and slow.
Oops, Basel isn't located in New York, USA.

You can also remember the loud crowd noise at Madrid where Ferrero escaped from Ferreira. Wait, that's not Roddick.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 10:32 AM
For example Roddick's escape against Nalbandian last year?

Well, Nalbandian couldn't win this year and you complain about 1 point in a 5 setter? He played very well last year, but it takes 2 guys to decide the outcome.
Has David come back from 2 sets down against Youzhny like Andy did? No.
Did David play well at Toronto '02, Montreal '03 and Houston?
Oh, you're unbiased. Funny how Fed and Agassi benefitted from others' health disadvantages, but Roddick's THE one with luck.

David didn't play at Basel and Coria won.
Roddick was terribly fat and slow.
Oops, Basel isn't located in New York, USA.

You can also remember the loud crowd noise at Madrid where Ferrero escaped from Ferreira. Wait, that's not Roddick.


I got a headache from just reading that, there is no way I am going to attempt and unscramble it to give you a proper reply.

UseTheSearchTool
09-04-2004, 10:33 AM
I thought Roddick only wins tournaments in North America and at Queens, silly me.

Lalitha
09-04-2004, 10:48 AM
This is like about the 17th thread on this toopic :o

UseTheSearchTool
09-04-2004, 10:51 AM
This is like about the 17th thread on this toopic :o

Some people should follow the advice on my login name.

Sjengster
09-04-2004, 03:04 PM
This TV problem wouldn't exist if only someone would import the interactive technology we get over here. I was able to choose from Haas-Grosjean, Koubek-Ferrero and Hewitt-Arazi all at the same time. And in fact during the Nalbandian match, the commentator actually said that he hoped they never abandoned the five-set format because it produced great contests like this. Youzhny was definitely impeded, it showed every time he was stretched out wide and that was why he had to serve big to keep the points short. Did anyone see that Ferrero-Zib marathon on Tuesday? The best tennis was in the fourth set, there were some brilliant exchanges that had the crowd on their feet - the first two sets, and a lot of the third, were pedestrian by comparison. But yes, if the USTA want best of three then they can have it, as well as banning all players with hard, unpronounceable names like Heuberger and Melzer who dare to show their anonymous faces at a Slam just because they're ranked high enough to get in. Don't they realise they're ruining the sport for spectators who shouldn't have to put up with the agony of watching unseeded players on outside courts?

Marc Rosset is Tall
09-04-2004, 07:40 PM
This TV problem wouldn't exist if only someone would import the interactive technology we get over here. I was able to choose from Haas-Grosjean, Koubek-Ferrero and Hewitt-Arazi all at the same time. And in fact during the Nalbandian match, the commentator actually said that he hoped they never abandoned the five-set format because it produced great contests like this. Youzhny was definitely impeded, it showed every time he was stretched out wide and that was why he had to serve big to keep the points short. Did anyone see that Ferrero-Zib marathon on Tuesday? The best tennis was in the fourth set, there were some brilliant exchanges that had the crowd on their feet - the first two sets, and a lot of the third, were pedestrian by comparison. But yes, if the USTA want best of three then they can have it, as well as banning all players with hard, unpronounceable names like Heuberger and Melzer who dare to show their anonymous faces at a Slam just because they're ranked high enough to get in. Don't they realise they're ruining the sport for spectators who shouldn't have to put up with the agony of watching unseeded players on outside courts?

You might kill them with such logic Sjengster but for this post.

:worship: :worship:

2Tough4Men
09-05-2004, 04:54 AM
I'm not sure why the USTA is being dragged through the mud here.

You guys would've made all these same arguments in favour of no tiebreaks.

Tennis must modernize and compete with other sports as best it can.

Frommage A Trois
09-05-2004, 03:11 PM
I'm not sure why the USTA is being dragged through the mud here.

You guys would've made all these same arguments in favour of no tiebreaks.

Tennis must modernize and compete with other sports as best it can.

Not true, well the tiebreak solution is fine as it is, and there was an example where a solution has worked to the benefit of the game.

This suggestion and your arguments haven't produced anything. So you honestly don't think Slams would be cheapened if it was best of 3 sets? If no, please explain why?

Players have not complained about the format of the Slams, the annual tournament calendar is more a problem than reducing the sets in Slams.

Ok, how about this for modernisation of tennis. All sets should be tiebreakers, they should make the net lower, add jugglers to the change of ends for entertainment for the fans. :)

star
09-05-2004, 03:23 PM
I like five sets at the slams.

I like the fact that endurance, stamina, and fitness play a role in the outcome.

Just think of the great five set matches we have had already at the U.S. Open this year. It's been fabulous.