[2003]

In terms of the top players.

We all know BO3 and BO5 is a different mindset and different ballgame. But it is still tennis and the sets still play and are scored the same.

What I am basically getting at is, do you think that every time a top player went down 2 sets to 0 or 2 sets to 1 at a slam, they would have lost had the formet been best of 3?

Or do you think that a top player maybe doesn't quite put 100% of his focus into set 2 if he gets broken, knowing that he has that buffer of another set, especially if its against a lesser player.

So Berdych 2 sets to 0 over Fed at AO 2009, when Fed went down 2 sets at Wimbledon this year, Hewitt to Russel at AO 2007 etc etc. All the times Djoko went down 2 sets at slams recently.

Do you think all those matches would have been lost by the top guys if slams were BO3 format? Or do you think they would have upped their game/the opponent choke?

[Kei_is_a_samurai]

I think it varies.

Fed may have played a 2nd set tb v benny if it was bo3

I oddly think Nadal would have beat Rosol if it was bo3

The better players if they go two sets down, always seem to win sets 3,4 and 5. So it makes sense in a bo3 if they lose the first then they regroup in 2 and 3.

The top guys have better fitness and mental strength/belief which helps.