Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
People often cite that best of 5 sets is a "different beast altogether" in tennis terms compared to best of 3 sets format, and that explains why players who have for years got the odd straight sets win over Fed/Nadal/Djokovic in masters fail to get wins in slams, however I don't think this is any reason whatsoever.

If so, why do those same players never go 2 sets up in a slam vs the big four? Or even 2 sets to 1? Why can't they even get a friggin set half the time when they have no trouble getting 2 in the masters format?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts
Because of several factors:

1) The top players usually step it up during GSs
2) The other guys don't have the belief that they can take 3 sets off as opposed to 2

Just look at Davydenko and Federer. Davydenko def Federer at the 09 WTF and 10 Doha, yet when he had the chance to go up 2 sets to love at the AO, he choked, and Federer ran away with like 10 or 11 games in a row, before Davydenko woke up again, but it was too late at that point.

Slams are a different beast
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,953 Posts
Depends on each case in particular. Sometimes it's the other way around too. Robredo had never beaten Federer and did it in a slam, Wawrinka with Nadal, Berdych with Djokovic, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
It is different in every case but in many cases they give up after losing the first set and knowing they have to win 2 more. Also, keeping a high level for 2 sets is easier than 3 sets against someone as consistent as Rafa. Imaging yourself playing a chess match against a computer that you have to play at 100% every time to beat, and imagine playing a long match against it. The computer will always play at its level ... your level will come down from your max, and then you lose :)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,621 Posts
When you play b05 you have to conserve energy.

Players who cause upsets over 3 sets play all sets at 99%. In B05 however each set is played with around 80%

The best players are more fit, so put maximum effort all the way through. The only exception in top 5 is maybe Federer, who also has to save energy because of his age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,700 Posts
In a BO3 match, a less-talented player needs to be good for an hour (or) an hour and a half to cause an upset of a more-talented player. For instance, a less-talented player can win the first set with a break, and take the second set to a tie-break and win the match there. So, game over for the more-talented player in no time.

In a BO5 match, a less-talented player needs to be good for at least two hours (or) two hours and a half to cause an upset of a more-talented player. To put it in another way, a more-talented player has more time in a BO5 match to correct the mental lapses, make amends to his game, and to come back into the match, and thereby poses relatively more or increased challenge to a less-talented player to defeat him.

Also, as others have stated already, a BO5 match is played at majors; so, big players step it up and bring their A game to the show.



Yeah, Rafa's slam record is too good and unique, that's why he is GOAT, no? :rolleyes:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,621 Posts
In a BO3 match, a less-talented player needs to be good for an hour (or) an hour and a half to cause an upset of a more-talented player. For instance, a less-talented player can win the first set with a break, and take the second set to a tie-break and win the match there. So, game over for the more-talented player in no time.

In a BO5 match, a less-talented player needs to be good for at least two hours (or) two hours and a half to cause an upset of a more-talented player. To put it in another way, a more-talented player has more time in a BO5 match to correct the mental lapses, make amends to his game, and to come back into the match, and thereby poses relatively more or increased challenge to a less-talented player to defeat him.

Also, as others have stated already, a BO5 match is played at majors; so, big players step it up and bring their A game to the show.



Yeah, Rafa's slam record is too good and unique, that's why he is GOAT, no? :rolleyes:
This is true, but does not explain the question. If what you say is true, Nadal would beat (Kuznetsov say?) 3-6 6-7 6-4 6-1 6-2, but he won 6-1 6-3 6-2, so OP asks why Kuznetsov isn't winning the first two sets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
In a BO3 match, a less-talented player needs to be good for an hour (or) an hour and a half to cause an upset of a more-talented player. For instance, a less-talented player can win the first set with a break, and take the second set to a tie-break and win the match there. So, game over for the more-talented player in no time.

In a BO5 match, a less-talented player needs to be good for at least two hours (or) two hours and a half to cause an upset of a more-talented player. To put it in another way, a more-talented player has more time in a BO5 match to correct the mental lapses, make amends to his game, and to come back into the match, and thereby poses relatively more or increased challenge to a less-talented player to defeat him.

Also, as others have stated already, a BO5 match is played at majors; so, big players step it up and bring their A game to the show.



Yeah, Rafa's slam record is too good and unique, that's why he is GOAT, no? :rolleyes:
2013 2014 2015
2R 1R 4R
26 27 28
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
53,561 Posts
Pressure of time I'd say. In BO3, winning 1 set means you are at best 1/2 way there, at worst 1/3 of the way (setwise). So it means Nadal must win the next two sets, or 1st and 3rd. It puts you on at worst even ground, at best a good advantage. This means Nadal has to up his level in quick time should he lose the first set.
In BO5, winning 1 set means you are at best 1/3 of the way there, at worst 1/5 of the way. Add in Nadal's experience, stamina, and the mental endurance a player needs through the ups and downs that come with a long BO5 format. So Nadal can have a real bad start, even lose the first two sets perhaps (in rare circumstances) and still climb back. Actually quite a few matches contested at RG, being 2 sets up doesn't always give such a big advantage, as Tomic, Mahut and Verdasco discovered for themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,639 Posts
Because of several factors:

1) The top players usually step it up during GSs
2) The other guys don't have the belief that they can take 3 sets off as opposed to 2
3) There is less pressure to win a set for best players on BO5 - the better player is more likely to win. Thus they choke less.

Also for Nadal his game suits better for RG conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
People often cite that best of 5 sets is a "different beast altogether" in tennis terms compared to best of 3 sets format, and that explains why players who have for years got the odd straight sets win over Fed/Nadal/Djokovic in masters fail to get wins in slams, however I don't think this is any reason whatsoever.

If so, why do those same players never go 2 sets up in a slam vs the big four? Or even 2 sets to 1? Why can't they even get a friggin set half the time when they have no trouble getting 2 in the masters format?
Why are you taking Nadal in account, when the guy has failed 3 years in a row now to get past R4 in Wimbledon..

Another example is Tsonga Vs Fed in Wimbledon, had it been BO3 Fed would have straight sets won it.. but instead Tsonga turned it around.

There are more masters tournaments than Grand slams, so obviously an average IQ guy like yourself has to start a thread about it, because he cant see the whole picture.

In terms of Matches/Ratio loosing to mugs BO3vsBO5.. they are approximatly the same..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
top players will lose set or two, its nothing unusual.
Murray lost set to Sousa, Nieminen served for set against Djokovic... at AO Federer lost a set to Bolleli before being beaten by Seppi, Nadal i think played five setter in first or second round... last year US Open Murray lost 2 or 3 sets before losing to Djokovic in QF, i think Federer too lost a set before Cilic match... last year Wim, Djokovic lose at least a set in most of the matches he played...
so far on RG, all top players were really consistent and thats anomaly if you ask me. id be hugely surprised if all Rafa, Novak and Federer enter QF without losing a set. id be less surprised if all 3 of them lose a set or two in 4th round
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,700 Posts
This is true, but does not explain the question. If what you say is true, Nadal would beat (Kuznetsov say?) 3-6 6-7 6-4 6-1 6-2, but he won 6-1 6-3 6-2, so OP asks why Kuznetsov isn't winning the first two sets.
Of course, it does explain. :rolleyes:

In a BO3 match, a less-talented player needs to be good for an hour (or) an hour and a half to cause an upset of a more-talented player. For instance, a less-talented player can win the first set with a break, and take the second set to a tie-break and win the match there. So, game over for the more-talented player in no time.

In a BO5 match, a less-talented player needs to be good for at least two hours (or) two hours and a half to cause an upset of a more-talented player. To put it in another way, a more-talented player has more time in a BO5 match to correct the mental lapses, make amends to his game, and to come back into the match, and thereby poses relatively more or increased challenge to a less-talented player to defeat him.

Also, as others have stated already, a BO5 match is played at majors; so, big players step it up and bring their A game to the show.



Yeah, Rafa's slam record is too good and unique, that's why he is GOAT, no? :rolleyes:
Anyways, God created Rafa only to create unrewritable history at RG.

9 titles in 10 years, 1 loss in 70 matches, only 2 times in 10 years stretched to 5 sets............Effff it, I am going to Himalayas to do meditation, and afterwards I am going to Vatican City to become a priest. You can join me too. Adios.

 

·
~♥ Magnus Norman ♥~
Joined
·
3,328 Posts
Bolelli was up 2 sets to 1 vs Ferru today - in a Masters that would've been a shock loss, but instead Ferru just got irritated and reeled off 6-0 6-1 to finish. ;)

As for Rafa, I do think there's a RG mystique to it. Few players really think they have a chance against him in Paris, whereas in Masters he does seem a bit more vulnerable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Of course, it does explain. :rolleyes:



Anyways, God created Rafa only to create unrewritable history at RG.

9 titles in 10 years, 1 loss in 70 matches, only 2 times in 10 years stretched to 5 sets............Effff it, I am going to Himalayas to do meditation, and afterwards I am going to Vatican City to become a priest. You can join me too. Adios.

Ahahhaha. That's funny. Because the imaginary fat old man in the clouds cares about tennis. lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,737 Posts
1. Big player step up at big events, aka Slams.

2. There is a huge difference between winning 2 sets and winning 3 sets.

3. Big players are mentally and physically much stronger than anyone, this shows off even more at Slams if things go long distance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
Bolelli was up 2 sets to 1 vs Ferru today - in a Masters that would've been a shock loss, but instead Ferru just got irritated and reeled off 6-0 6-1 to finish. ;)

As for Rafa, I do think there's a RG mystique to it. Few players really think they have a chance against him in Paris, whereas in Masters he does seem a bit more vulnerable.
There is a big difference of fitness to play Bo5 and Bo3, a player is required to be incredibly fit for Bo5.

The example of Bolelli shows it, he is a journeyman who only played Bo3 in his life.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top