Is best of 3 sets the same "mindset" as best of 5?
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?
Federer is a clown who only beat mugs, making his slam victories less meaningful.
Now since Nadal won many of his titles against a clownish Federer, it means Nadal's victories are also cheapened.
And finally, since Nole beat a clownish Nadal in many of his slam victories, his achievements are further cheapened.
Conclusion: everyone is a clown, playing in a neverending clown era.