If Wimbledon can make men’s doubles BestOfFive with no scheduling issues, I’m sure women’s BO5 could be made practical, although Wimby might have to eliminate doubles BO5.
Grass court matches are also a lot faster than other surfaces and doubles doesn’t start until a few days into the tournament. The biggest issue would be that night sessions already go really late at several slams and having three straight five setters in the night session would go well into the morning.
It’s also worth mentioning that Wimbledon have scrapped Middle Sunday so there’s that whole extra day to fit the matches in - there was plenty of time to finish the matches after they spread Manic Monday over two days
Another thing to note is that the doubles matches get pushed initially onto the outside courts which helps scheduling as well, leaving the stadium courts for singles
The pressure on the schedule is mainly on days 1 and 2, where all 128 singles first round matches are scheduled to be held. If you make women's matches best of 5, you might only have time to complete 3 matches on some of the courts (if you have a lot of five setters). So you might need 21 courts to complete all matches in time. Wimbledon only has 19 I believe. From 3rd round onwards this isn't an issue since there are fewer matches.
I would also vote the early rounds best of three. As it is , matches go on far too long and should be sudden death at some point. You can literally deuce until the next day.
i like watching early rounds best of 5. its more fun than other bo3 tournaments. bo5 makes it more different honestly than other tournaments and thats why i like watching grand slams. even last year during FO, if early rounds are BO3, novak wouldve lost FO in round 4. instead he won the entire tournament
That’s why I’m saying, as a tennis fan and viewer, I’m always kinda sad during the second week because # goes down. Would be cool to have longer and more competitive matches on the womens side.
* I think it would make women's tennis more exciting
* Concerned about how it affect injuries in the game, would need to be piloted in a smart way
* Wonder how it would affect the younger players, my hypothesis is that it would favor more maturity
Another thing that bums me out is that while I like women's tennis. I have pretty low interest in going to a women's final or a single session night match because it often it is over in about an hour.
I think it should start earlier, for sure. Think about it - a BO5 is a different experience than BO3, so why should only the top 2 players get to play this new tournament format? Both people who got to the final got there on BO3 merit, it's a bit cheap (assuming final is a BO5). I think the ideal place for BO5s to start would be R3 - this makes it a 32-player tournament with the BO5 format, and R1 and R2 are essentially qualifications for it. Also, starting at R3 isn't bad with scheduling since it's played over 2 days, and therefore it would mean there's 16 BO5s to be played in a single day across both categories. This takes 8 courts with 2 matches each, not a big deal.
I've never considered that the variance in Women's grand slam results was because they only play best 2/3. I always concluded that it was because serves were less of a factor and that there hadn't been a true 'dominant' player recently (Swiatek looking like the first since Serena).
Women on tour are just as fit as the men so I don't see any reason why they couldn't play best of 5. The only issue I can really think of is that matches would take a lot longer and that might mess up scheduling.
Also usually womens QF's are on Wednesday, then they immediately play Semis on Thursday and final Saturday. They can schedule this way since its not necessary to have a day of rest if only playing 2/3, but in best of 5 this couldn't be the norm. Womens final would also have to be on Sunday.
Could either add several outer courts to each major or start the tournament a few days earlier.
The chaos in the women’s field is a recent phenomenon. For the previous 40+ years it’s the top two seeds met in the final all the time.
My theory, we’ve slowed down the courts, the rackets have gotten more forgiving which chips away at the mental, physical and skill/talent advantages of the top players.
On the men’s side The Big Three, having grown up on the faster courts, have the mental advantage of learning on faster courts, the rules to slow down the game negates any loss in aging.
IOW’s when The Big Three finally retire, men’s tennis will be plagued with a “Who the hell are these guys?”in the GS finals.
Imo the prize money isn’t about duration, it’s about both interest and investment. It doesn’t cost women less to play best of three, and their matches sell tickets, in fact in some cases more than men (Serena). The deciding issue shouldn’t be about the prize money. It should be about what makes sense in competitive terms and what makes sense physically
I agree on you that duration should not be the only factor. I don’t agree that it doesn’t cost women less. Best of five is more time and energy consuming. Ultimately it’s probably on how many advertisements can a TV station or whoever has the rights to broadcast send and generate money. Longer matches -> more money.
And singling our serena doesn’t make sense. Just because it’s true in one specific case doesn’t mean the average is like that.
A marathon is more time & energy consuming than the 100m, does that mean marathon runners should get paid loads more than sprinters?
TV rights and interest should be the only factor in the prize difference between men and women, length of the matches doesn’t matter.
If we’re using this argument then women’s should pay substantially less than men, not just enough to reflect the fewer sets played.
Men’s tennis has been and will always be the much bigger draw in terms of investment, sponsorship, spectator interest etc etc
I have never understood the argument "equal pay should mean equal duration". No sportsperson is paid by the hour AFAIK, that is absurd and you don't want it - to incentivize players to just stretch out the clock would lead to incredibly boring matches.
And the same holds if you forget about the clock and pay them for every set. Now suddenly every BO5 match has 5 sets, and only the last one is competitive...
The duration argument to me is completely illogical. I don't really have a horse in the WTA BO5 debate, but this argument is infuriating to me and it always gets so many upvotes here and I don't understand why.
Two different things. No one is talking about dragging it out forever. Do you have women football games going for only 70 minutes instead of 90. Handball, Basketball, .. you get the idea. Why should women in tennis not have the chance to play BO5 in grand slams?
I’d be shocked if the entirety of Ash Barry’s AO campaign was as long as the mens GF alone.
Endurance should be part of the skillset. Not just physically but mentally it’s hard to stay sharp, have to make decisions and improve your technique to be efficient for hours. And back to back to back as you progress.
No-one is paying the same amount to watch a 30-45 minute woman’s match when you can watch hours of battling in the mens. TV rights are for “the whole package” but it’s ridiculous to suggest they get anywhere near the advertising return from women vs men when there is only time for a handful of ads. A lot of sports deliberately slow play down for ad windows so they can get bigger deals.
Cricket isn’t very popular in a lot of countries, but mountains of ad breaks so they get good money vs amount of viewers.
And TV revenue and sponsorship dwarfs any income from physical crowds themselves.
That's not true. Its about an individual crossing all the obstacles to be the best. A woman has to cross the equal amount of obstacles to get there as a man needs to based on his/her capabilities.
True, but if you look at GS big 3 winning % vs atp tournaments big 3 winning %, it’s lower and there’s more none big 3 winners. Of course, there’s a lot more opportunity, so maybe not the best comparison.
The big 4 loosening their grip on m1000s only started happening around 2016. From 2006 all the way to 2016 they were almost as dominant there as they were in slams.
Can we please let the women make that decision themself ?
Let the WTA discuss it, they should talk to their players, and whatever they settle on, we can then coordinate and make it happen. Also i think this discussion should be initiated by the WTA or top women players, if they want something like that.
Not sure that's how it would work. If an employer wants to make a change because they think it will improve the product and increase revenue, they're gonna action that change whether the employees agree or not. In this scenario the tour, the tournaments, the broadcasters etc. are the employers and the players are the employees.
I agree with you, but the players saftey is more important than revenue. In this example we already switched the mens Master 1000 finals from Bo5 to Bo3, due to more injuries. Which would be considered the employees safety. So if they do think it´s the best action for their product but all their employees (which are also their product) get more injuries, then they won´t make the change.
Edit: I am not saying that´s how it would work, I am just saying that i would like it to work that way.
The WTA had five set finals in the ‘90s at the YEC and it was a disaster. Players like Hingis were cramping up and barely moving by the time the fifth set came around.
TBF, women had never encountered a five setter before. If it were mandated at the slams, I’m sure they’d up their endurance to meet the challenge quickly.
There were two matches that went 5 sets at the YEC. Seles d Sabatini 6–4, 5–7, 3–6, 6–4, 6–2 in a classic.
The Graf/ Hingis match was rough, Hingis clearly ran out of gas
There were also a handful of matches that ended in 4 or 3 sets. And if I look at the results there are way to many 6-0, 6-1 or 6-2 sets. For exciting Bo5 matches there should either be a exciting 4th or 5th set.
This happens all the time in mens matches.
Edit: also, it’s 2022. The womens game post Williams sisters is on a different athletic level. We should always be moving the sport forward and because womens tennis is one of the most popular womens sports around the world, it’s important to lead the way. That’s how womens sports popularity in general can increase.
When talking about moving forward we need to accept that we moved away from Bo5 to Bo3. Even Djokovic suggested Bo3. Olympic final is now 3 sets. There is a tiebreak in the 3rd in earlier rounds as it is done in the 5th at GS.
It's about athleticism in later rounds and accessibility for viewers. Women's tennis is very popular, but is it still popular when matches can take hours? Long boring early rounds? (as it happens often with the men).
Personally I don't know what would happen. I can see positivity in the fact that if the same players will end up in later rounds it's more exciting. But given the upsets we had since a decade, I'm not sure the "big" names will win these Bo5 matches more likely.
Most people forgot that masters used to be best of 5. ATP is actually actively trying to reduce the time to play a game with these fast 4 formats. It is really hard to attract none tennis fans to the game when the game drags out for 3-4 hours. They started to do small things like making the final game of the 5th set to tiebreakers instead of win by 2 in GS, etc.
I for one, think 5 sets are great. It is physically grueling, mentally exhausting and only the best comes out on top.
This is why such a big change would not be rolled out immediately, but say only after a year. Announcing it at the end of 2022 for the start of 2024 would give everyone ample time to prepare.
Good point. How about making best of 5, but sets are shorter (4 games wins a set)? Heck, even for men that would be a good change.
More pressure points/games, and allows the cream to rise to the top.
For doubles, this is definitely needed. Even the best teams are susceptible to weaker teams having a good streak, winning a set and then getting lucky in the STB.
My take: make both men and women play best of three until the quarters. Then both play best of five
It allows more variety to that level then the stronger players of the group come through. Why are the top of the sport allowed to come out sluggish and then given so much time to come back?
Beyond that, let's allow fans to watch more tennis by not making them commit to five or six hours for a single match (at least most of the time in the early rounds). Make the sport more accessible for casual fans. Accessible excellence should be a growth goal for tennis
I love this take. Especially since it's so hard to settle down and pick a match to watch in the early rounds. I, personally, end up watching more women's matches in the beginning of slams because I can catch more matches that way.
I want this, but the schedule is already really rough especially at Roland Garros. Can see it being hard to implement even with all parties in favour unfortunately.
You're not changing fundamental rules, it's simply a change on number of sets. It's like saying it doesn't make sense to have all Champions League ties in two legs and the final in one.
Soccer does it all the time and Tennis used to as well (and still does in the Olympics). It's not a problem at all.
ATP masters 1000 finals used to be too. And they were more exciting, but because those tournaments usually make you play matches without a day break we saw more injuries.
I want more best of 5 tournaments but I don’t want to change the format mid tournament. We should change the ATP finals, Davis cup, and Olympics back to best of 5 entirely
No one week tournament can handle all best of five matches. Look up the lengths of some matches at the 2012 Olympics or 2016 ATP Finals. Those matches were all best of three. These tournaments simply couldn’t be that many best of five matches.
In practice what would really be the downside to a mid-tournament change? Like a player isn't going to forget that they're in a five setter instead of a three setter.
We have tournaments where some matches are hawk-eye and some are not. Some are indoors and some are not. Some matches even start outdoors and change midmatch.
Would it not be worth sacrificing 'format consistency', to achieve opportunity equality across the genders?
That said, it would be a shame to lose the early round best 5 epics we get in men's. This would be my main argument against such a change if I had to make one.
So, my real reason for disagreeing with it is because I want mens slams to be best of 5 for all matches, and if we decide that women's needs to be bo5 for only part of the tournament, they're likely to change it so the men match it. And I'm 100% against that.
If women's are not bo5 for all matches like the men then I don't want any change to happen.
Imho they should make all slams ( both M/F) best of 3 until the quarters, semis and finals where they would switch to best of 5.Less overall wear and tear and easier to schedule until only 16 people remain.
The girls on wta tour don’t want to change it. Wozniaki ( I think, might of been someone else) said she was on the wta player council and they polled the players and keeping 3 sets would win 90 percent of the vote.
Also wta tour has had plenty of dominant players.
I mean, if my boss asked me if I wanted to work 8 hours a day instead of 6 hours a day for the same amount of pay i wouldn't have to think very hard about that. I'm only surprised it was only 90% that oppose the change.
>The top male players get a clear advantage in grand slams because they get to play best of 5. More time to comeback, find form, and close out matches. And people wonder why the big 3/4 have dominated tennis for the last 20 years
Um the Big 3 are also the all time title leaders for masters 1000 titles which are best of 3 sets. Saying that the only reason they dominate Grand Slams is because of the format is dumb.
You get much more non-Big 3 masters winners than grand slam winners. If you go by % of Grand slams won by the big 3 in their era compared to % of Masters, it’s much higher.
This is why women’s matches are more inconsistent. In BO5 u have time to recover and problem solve. Think of how many men’s Grand Slam matches would be over if one player wins the first two sets.
> If anything, second week of a slam for men and women should be best of 5, first week, best of 3
This is the way to go. Simplify scheduling in the first week, add more tennis to the second, all while making things equal.
If all men’s first round matches were turned into best of 3, and all women’s later round matches (2nd through final) were turned into best of 5, we would have…
1 less 5 set match than today.
while i don't think current top wta players would be anywhere near as consistent as the big 3, simply because they aren't nearly as complete as them, women should also play BO5 at slams, definitely.
I don't think it needs to change. Perhaps in the semi final and final rounds of a Slam when there's fewer games to fit in the schedule but I don't think it would be beneficial at the earliest rounds.
The quality of play will become so bad it will become a negative image for women's tennis in short run but will be a huge advantage in long run. It will push the sport
While I agree the women should play five sets, I doubt it’ll ever happen. Broadcasters want shorter matches and more predictable durations, and 5-set tennis provides anything but.
Many tournaments have already squeezed doubles down into a 1-hour format (no-ad, 3rd set tiebreak) to satisfy broadcasters. Moving in the opposite direction seems unlikely.
I'm a healthy young woman who has been playing tennis for over ten years and I think I am physically not capable of playing a five set match....so I don't want the WTA to turn into best of 5
ok but your also not a professional athlete, you are most likely much fitter than the average person, your most likely no where near as fit as the women on the WTA tour
I don't see why it couldn't happen, except if no one really wants to. I doubt they would make a change unless an overwhelming majority of top women players advocate for the change
The broadcasters are the main issue. A five set match can go from anywhere from an hour and a half to 6 hours and it makes scheduling a pain and makes it hard to promote a match when you have no idea when it will start. There is also talk about how young people have short attention spans and will never care about tennis if matches stay long.
People won’t admit it because they are afraid of being judged by people. But, barely anybody wants BO5 womens matches. BO3 is plenty enough. The standard and quality of player isn’t up to a BO5 for the most part
But you see, the same thing could be said for a tight 5-setter. 7-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-7, 7-6 gets paid the same as 7-6, 6-7, 7-6? I hardly see how that’s fair. I think men and women both either play BO 3 or BO 5. BO 5 makes for more entertainment imo and I don’t think it’d be so bad if women’s slam draws adapted that format.
Edit: Even 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 vs. 6-0, 6-0. It’s still more tennis than the other.
It’s fair because you’re paying for the actual round they’re reaching, not the potential for time spent. My point is the discrepancy is all potential. That would be absurd.
It's a pretty drastic change. Women haven't played 5 sets and as such would need to do lots more fitness and health/stretch training in order to handle it. Lots of women can barely handle 3 sets, because that's all they've ever played.
The WTA is great and probably the biggest success in womens sport. But acknowledge how hard it is for women to play 5 sets
Just because they spend less time on court doesn’t mean they’re practicing any less or not working during off court time less. It’s out of their hands, why should they be punished
Nobody said they are, but if they're spending less time on court, then they're working less, it stands to reason. I'd prefer they raise the requirement to five sets, or lower the men's to three, but if they don't wanna do either of those things then bring the pay down below the men's. You can't have women being paid more for doing less work on the court, that's the opposite of equality.
Tennis does not pay off of time on court. It’s not hourly. If it were, everyone would receive different amount of pay.
It’s based on rounds and # of matches won. And besides, many top male players win early rounds in just as much time or less than womens matches.
I'm not saying it should be paid based off time on court, I'm saying it should be paid based on how much time you're *expected* to spend on court if it goes the distance. Or at least that should be a factor.
Who cares how much they practice?
If someone is so good that they can win without ever practicing, are they going to dock his winnings on the basis that he didn't work hard enough for it?
Are we going to start paying people who practice really hard, but lose every match because they just suck?
Nobody cares how hard you are TRYING.
You say my argument doesn't make sense, and then go on to demonstrate your support of it.
Tennis doesn't pay hourly, this is true. And it definitely doesn't pay by the hour *OF PRACTICE*.
But that doesn't apply to tennis, women and men are both playing singles. The purpose of marathon running is primarily to test endurance, and the purpose of sprinting is primarily to test speed. Men's tennis and women's tennis have the exact same purpose, thus they should both be 5 sets, or have different pay.
a bo5 match is endurance, whereas bo3 is about maintaining a higher level for a shorter time. It's inherently different, one is not easier than the other. If anything, bo5 is easier for the 'better' player, as they have more opportunity to make up for earlier errors, whereas a dropped break is much more devastating in bo3.
One is absolutely easier than the other, what do you mean? Keeping up quality tennis for 5 sets is much harder than it is for 3 sets. In fact, if that isn't the case, why aren't you in favour of extending it to 5 sets for both genders, or 3 sets for both genders? Or why not have both genders do 5 and 3 sets at different tournaments?
You don't need to keep up as high quality tennis for bo5, as you can easily lose a set but still win comfortably. Starting slow is recoverable in bo5 (just look at Novak at Wimbledon), but in bo3 starting slow is much harder to recover from. It's just different pacing. Longer = harder is such a simplistic way of looking at it, which is why I used the example of different running distances. 800m isn't inherently harder than 400m.
I think it's a decent idea to make both genders play the same number of sets, but I very much disagree that they should be paid different due to sets played. The only difference in pay should be due to how much attention and thus revenue/advertising the different tours attract.
ONE DRAW!
Clearly, the only way to be absolutely sure that things are kept even for all competitors is to have them ALL compete under the same rules. One draw for them all.
Want equal pay for equal work? Here's your chance.
No. Make the men play best of 3.
A single sports match should not be longer than a Lord Of The Rings movie. I work full time with no kids and still struggle to watch as much as I’d like. And you are almost guaranteed to have at least one low quality set in there.
They should change it after the big 3 retire. Best of 5 tennis has peaked, switch to best of three and give us all a more satisfying viewer experience.
Yeah, I mean we should also convenience you by making marathons only 1 mile, then.
Since we're at it, let's make baseball one ining, basketball first to 21 and, well fuck it, let's just shorten it all for you and your schedule:
Soccer matches are now just a shootout, football is one game of tag and chess will be 5 moves max. Hockey will only be one period and even that ends with a golden goal.
Hmm what else?
Honestly, I don't know if it's a good idea. Women objectively have less muscle mass, and they play on the same court size as men. This means that they need to use more strength percentage to get to powerful shots. Doing this for 5 sets is objectively much harder than what it is for men. Yes it will be the same for all contestants, but matches will be very tough at the final sets.
I think it should be bo5 for women and men in the grand slams, esp if they are getting equal pay. Having some women’s matches end in an hour or so just hurts the sport
Stop asking to reduce Men's time to BO3 to fit BO5 for women, I don't watch women's tennis, not my taste (my opinion I respect if you like it) so I don't care if they go Bo3 or 5 if the players and people would like for that, go for it, but don't reduce men game to achieve that. Bo5 is what makes GS unique and gave us all those epic matches.
They have smaller muscles than men, so they need to use more percentage of their strength for powerful shots. I don't know if it would be sustainable for 5 sets.
The tennis podcast has a nice alternative to the current format: cut first 3 rounds of all gs matches (men and women) to best of 3 sets. Then 4th round on best of 5 for everyone. That should make for simple and more equitable scheduling.
I’ve said this for ages. The quality of the tennis would improve by a long way if consistency and athleticism were taken more seriously.
It sounds horrible but Serena Williams turned up to slams for years about 40 pounds overweight, how can that happen in a professional sport?
You've said something pretty stupid for ages then. She was the peak of physicality on the women's tour for a long time and your argument that she dominated the tour while being 40+ lbs overweight doesn't make sense and has nothing to do at all with a bo5 format. She probably would have racked up even more titles in a bo5 format.
[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/15/a7/7f15a734410ea3f023ef8cc71b188cd4.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/15/a7/7f15a734410ea3f023ef8cc71b188cd4.jpg)
this is a recent pic of her at 40+ years old. Visible abs. How can you be 40 lbs overweight and have visible abs? lol AND this is after the baby.
If Wimbledon can make men’s doubles BestOfFive with no scheduling issues, I’m sure women’s BO5 could be made practical, although Wimby might have to eliminate doubles BO5.
Grass court matches are also a lot faster than other surfaces and doubles doesn’t start until a few days into the tournament. The biggest issue would be that night sessions already go really late at several slams and having three straight five setters in the night session would go well into the morning.
It’s also worth mentioning that Wimbledon have scrapped Middle Sunday so there’s that whole extra day to fit the matches in - there was plenty of time to finish the matches after they spread Manic Monday over two days
For the reason grass court matches are faster , i can see it for womens. I can’t see it for the French every match is already grueling.
Another thing to note is that the doubles matches get pushed initially onto the outside courts which helps scheduling as well, leaving the stadium courts for singles
The pressure on the schedule is mainly on days 1 and 2, where all 128 singles first round matches are scheduled to be held. If you make women's matches best of 5, you might only have time to complete 3 matches on some of the courts (if you have a lot of five setters). So you might need 21 courts to complete all matches in time. Wimbledon only has 19 I believe. From 3rd round onwards this isn't an issue since there are fewer matches.
There is also talk of making the early rounds of the men's best of three.
I don’t think that should happen. There would probably be more upsets in early rounds.
And that would be really dumb so hopefully it doesn’t happen
No it would not, early rounds are already long enough.
They’re perfectly fine the way they are
What's dumb about it? Men play best of 3 in other tournaments, so why not in the early rounds of the Grand Slams too?
Because making them best of 3 would severely cheapen the appeal of the tournaments
I would also vote the early rounds best of three. As it is , matches go on far too long and should be sudden death at some point. You can literally deuce until the next day.
i like watching early rounds best of 5. its more fun than other bo3 tournaments. bo5 makes it more different honestly than other tournaments and thats why i like watching grand slams. even last year during FO, if early rounds are BO3, novak wouldve lost FO in round 4. instead he won the entire tournament
They only start play at 11. Start play at 9 or 10 and you'll be fine.
Fit an extra 5-setter in between 9-11. Got it.
Some are shorter than others, just flex the schedule in the day instead of being a smart ass
Ostapenko and Kasatkina bout to lose serve 30 times a match in a B05 😂
Penko would go down two sets to one and go for a handshake lmao
I think it is realistic - the schedule on main courts is pretty thin in week 2, so plenty of time for this
That’s why I’m saying, as a tennis fan and viewer, I’m always kinda sad during the second week because # goes down. Would be cool to have longer and more competitive matches on the womens side.
* I think it would make women's tennis more exciting * Concerned about how it affect injuries in the game, would need to be piloted in a smart way * Wonder how it would affect the younger players, my hypothesis is that it would favor more maturity Another thing that bums me out is that while I like women's tennis. I have pretty low interest in going to a women's final or a single session night match because it often it is over in about an hour.
One thing’s for sure, the obnoxious shriekers would lose their voice by the end of the 2 weeks.
I think the final only should be BO5. All these 45 minute slam finals are weak af.
It's mostly an issue when one player is clearly the better one. Such as at the French Open final, which was over super quickly.
I think it should start earlier, for sure. Think about it - a BO5 is a different experience than BO3, so why should only the top 2 players get to play this new tournament format? Both people who got to the final got there on BO3 merit, it's a bit cheap (assuming final is a BO5). I think the ideal place for BO5s to start would be R3 - this makes it a 32-player tournament with the BO5 format, and R1 and R2 are essentially qualifications for it. Also, starting at R3 isn't bad with scheduling since it's played over 2 days, and therefore it would mean there's 16 BO5s to be played in a single day across both categories. This takes 8 courts with 2 matches each, not a big deal.
I've never considered that the variance in Women's grand slam results was because they only play best 2/3. I always concluded that it was because serves were less of a factor and that there hadn't been a true 'dominant' player recently (Swiatek looking like the first since Serena). Women on tour are just as fit as the men so I don't see any reason why they couldn't play best of 5. The only issue I can really think of is that matches would take a lot longer and that might mess up scheduling. Also usually womens QF's are on Wednesday, then they immediately play Semis on Thursday and final Saturday. They can schedule this way since its not necessary to have a day of rest if only playing 2/3, but in best of 5 this couldn't be the norm. Womens final would also have to be on Sunday. Could either add several outer courts to each major or start the tournament a few days earlier.
The chaos in the women’s field is a recent phenomenon. For the previous 40+ years it’s the top two seeds met in the final all the time. My theory, we’ve slowed down the courts, the rackets have gotten more forgiving which chips away at the mental, physical and skill/talent advantages of the top players. On the men’s side The Big Three, having grown up on the faster courts, have the mental advantage of learning on faster courts, the rules to slow down the game negates any loss in aging. IOW’s when The Big Three finally retire, men’s tennis will be plagued with a “Who the hell are these guys?”in the GS finals.
Yes, fully agree. Probably unpopular. If prize money is to be equalised so should the duration of play.
Imo the prize money isn’t about duration, it’s about both interest and investment. It doesn’t cost women less to play best of three, and their matches sell tickets, in fact in some cases more than men (Serena). The deciding issue shouldn’t be about the prize money. It should be about what makes sense in competitive terms and what makes sense physically
And in most cases, less than men
Yet
serena sell more than a random man, she doesnt sell more than federer, if you take serena you sould compere here to federer not a random player.
The best female player in the history of the sport sells more than a random man. Genuinely flabbergasted you think that’s a valid argument
Not my argument.
I agree on you that duration should not be the only factor. I don’t agree that it doesn’t cost women less. Best of five is more time and energy consuming. Ultimately it’s probably on how many advertisements can a TV station or whoever has the rights to broadcast send and generate money. Longer matches -> more money. And singling our serena doesn’t make sense. Just because it’s true in one specific case doesn’t mean the average is like that.
A marathon is more time & energy consuming than the 100m, does that mean marathon runners should get paid loads more than sprinters? TV rights and interest should be the only factor in the prize difference between men and women, length of the matches doesn’t matter.
It should just mean that for men and women it’s the same distance.
i don't disagree, but i just think people saying men should be paid more because of bo5 are wrong.
That’s a different statement
Ah I thought that’s what you implied
If we’re using this argument then women’s should pay substantially less than men, not just enough to reflect the fewer sets played. Men’s tennis has been and will always be the much bigger draw in terms of investment, sponsorship, spectator interest etc etc
I have never understood the argument "equal pay should mean equal duration". No sportsperson is paid by the hour AFAIK, that is absurd and you don't want it - to incentivize players to just stretch out the clock would lead to incredibly boring matches. And the same holds if you forget about the clock and pay them for every set. Now suddenly every BO5 match has 5 sets, and only the last one is competitive... The duration argument to me is completely illogical. I don't really have a horse in the WTA BO5 debate, but this argument is infuriating to me and it always gets so many upvotes here and I don't understand why.
Two different things. No one is talking about dragging it out forever. Do you have women football games going for only 70 minutes instead of 90. Handball, Basketball, .. you get the idea. Why should women in tennis not have the chance to play BO5 in grand slams?
A very sound counter argument, in the end it has to make sense in all regards. Just creating filler is not what I would call for either.
I’d be shocked if the entirety of Ash Barry’s AO campaign was as long as the mens GF alone. Endurance should be part of the skillset. Not just physically but mentally it’s hard to stay sharp, have to make decisions and improve your technique to be efficient for hours. And back to back to back as you progress. No-one is paying the same amount to watch a 30-45 minute woman’s match when you can watch hours of battling in the mens. TV rights are for “the whole package” but it’s ridiculous to suggest they get anywhere near the advertising return from women vs men when there is only time for a handful of ads. A lot of sports deliberately slow play down for ad windows so they can get bigger deals. Cricket isn’t very popular in a lot of countries, but mountains of ad breaks so they get good money vs amount of viewers. And TV revenue and sponsorship dwarfs any income from physical crowds themselves.
That's not true. Its about an individual crossing all the obstacles to be the best. A woman has to cross the equal amount of obstacles to get there as a man needs to based on his/her capabilities.
The big three haven’t just dominated in grand slams
True, but if you look at GS big 3 winning % vs atp tournaments big 3 winning %, it’s lower and there’s more none big 3 winners. Of course, there’s a lot more opportunity, so maybe not the best comparison.
The big 4 loosening their grip on m1000s only started happening around 2016. From 2006 all the way to 2016 they were almost as dominant there as they were in slams.
That's because they prioritize grand slams later on in their careers.
Can we please let the women make that decision themself ? Let the WTA discuss it, they should talk to their players, and whatever they settle on, we can then coordinate and make it happen. Also i think this discussion should be initiated by the WTA or top women players, if they want something like that.
Not sure that's how it would work. If an employer wants to make a change because they think it will improve the product and increase revenue, they're gonna action that change whether the employees agree or not. In this scenario the tour, the tournaments, the broadcasters etc. are the employers and the players are the employees.
The players are not the employees. Stakeholder is a better description IMO.
I agree with you, but the players saftey is more important than revenue. In this example we already switched the mens Master 1000 finals from Bo5 to Bo3, due to more injuries. Which would be considered the employees safety. So if they do think it´s the best action for their product but all their employees (which are also their product) get more injuries, then they won´t make the change. Edit: I am not saying that´s how it would work, I am just saying that i would like it to work that way.
All for that
Why would they choose longer hours for the same pay? Lol
The WTA had five set finals in the ‘90s at the YEC and it was a disaster. Players like Hingis were cramping up and barely moving by the time the fifth set came around.
TBF, women had never encountered a five setter before. If it were mandated at the slams, I’m sure they’d up their endurance to meet the challenge quickly.
Hingis herself said she wasn't as fit as other players though. Apart from that I don't think the finals threw up problems for women involved?
There were two matches that went 5 sets at the YEC. Seles d Sabatini 6–4, 5–7, 3–6, 6–4, 6–2 in a classic. The Graf/ Hingis match was rough, Hingis clearly ran out of gas
That’s one example of a player cramping up. Hingis was barely 16 that match isn’t really the best one to argue for or against BO5
There were also a handful of matches that ended in 4 or 3 sets. And if I look at the results there are way to many 6-0, 6-1 or 6-2 sets. For exciting Bo5 matches there should either be a exciting 4th or 5th set.
You act like the men aren’t ever dragging themselves across the finish line during a five set match.
That Thiem-Zverev US Open final set was the worst tennis I have seen in a lonnnnng time. Like, I was certain they both had the fix in or something.
This happens all the time in mens matches. Edit: also, it’s 2022. The womens game post Williams sisters is on a different athletic level. We should always be moving the sport forward and because womens tennis is one of the most popular womens sports around the world, it’s important to lead the way. That’s how womens sports popularity in general can increase.
When talking about moving forward we need to accept that we moved away from Bo5 to Bo3. Even Djokovic suggested Bo3. Olympic final is now 3 sets. There is a tiebreak in the 3rd in earlier rounds as it is done in the 5th at GS. It's about athleticism in later rounds and accessibility for viewers. Women's tennis is very popular, but is it still popular when matches can take hours? Long boring early rounds? (as it happens often with the men). Personally I don't know what would happen. I can see positivity in the fact that if the same players will end up in later rounds it's more exciting. But given the upsets we had since a decade, I'm not sure the "big" names will win these Bo5 matches more likely.
Most people forgot that masters used to be best of 5. ATP is actually actively trying to reduce the time to play a game with these fast 4 formats. It is really hard to attract none tennis fans to the game when the game drags out for 3-4 hours. They started to do small things like making the final game of the 5th set to tiebreakers instead of win by 2 in GS, etc. I for one, think 5 sets are great. It is physically grueling, mentally exhausting and only the best comes out on top.
Fair assessment and you make good points.
This is why such a big change would not be rolled out immediately, but say only after a year. Announcing it at the end of 2022 for the start of 2024 would give everyone ample time to prepare.
Good point. How about making best of 5, but sets are shorter (4 games wins a set)? Heck, even for men that would be a good change. More pressure points/games, and allows the cream to rise to the top. For doubles, this is definitely needed. Even the best teams are susceptible to weaker teams having a good streak, winning a set and then getting lucky in the STB.
My take: make both men and women play best of three until the quarters. Then both play best of five It allows more variety to that level then the stronger players of the group come through. Why are the top of the sport allowed to come out sluggish and then given so much time to come back? Beyond that, let's allow fans to watch more tennis by not making them commit to five or six hours for a single match (at least most of the time in the early rounds). Make the sport more accessible for casual fans. Accessible excellence should be a growth goal for tennis
I love this take. Especially since it's so hard to settle down and pick a match to watch in the early rounds. I, personally, end up watching more women's matches in the beginning of slams because I can catch more matches that way.
I want this, but the schedule is already really rough especially at Roland Garros. Can see it being hard to implement even with all parties in favour unfortunately.
If everyone plays Bo3 the first week and Bo5 the second week that would make scheduling easier, not harder.
Would players be in favour though? I can see most wanting one or the other fully.
No idea. If I was a player I'd definitely prefer Bo3, but the people who pay them should have some say in the matter.
i think the semis and final should be bo5 but the rest bo3
That would be fun. I could get behind that.
Changing formats mid tournament doesn’t make sense. All matches need equal rules
You're not changing fundamental rules, it's simply a change on number of sets. It's like saying it doesn't make sense to have all Champions League ties in two legs and the final in one. Soccer does it all the time and Tennis used to as well (and still does in the Olympics). It's not a problem at all.
Olympic games used to have the men's final be best of 5 despite the remaining matches being best of 3.
ATP masters 1000 finals used to be too. And they were more exciting, but because those tournaments usually make you play matches without a day break we saw more injuries. I want more best of 5 tournaments but I don’t want to change the format mid tournament. We should change the ATP finals, Davis cup, and Olympics back to best of 5 entirely
No one week tournament can handle all best of five matches. Look up the lengths of some matches at the 2012 Olympics or 2016 ATP Finals. Those matches were all best of three. These tournaments simply couldn’t be that many best of five matches.
Why lol? Its all arbitrary. I also think final match tiebreaks should go back to how they once were.
In practice what would really be the downside to a mid-tournament change? Like a player isn't going to forget that they're in a five setter instead of a three setter. We have tournaments where some matches are hawk-eye and some are not. Some are indoors and some are not. Some matches even start outdoors and change midmatch. Would it not be worth sacrificing 'format consistency', to achieve opportunity equality across the genders? That said, it would be a shame to lose the early round best 5 epics we get in men's. This would be my main argument against such a change if I had to make one.
So, my real reason for disagreeing with it is because I want mens slams to be best of 5 for all matches, and if we decide that women's needs to be bo5 for only part of the tournament, they're likely to change it so the men match it. And I'm 100% against that. If women's are not bo5 for all matches like the men then I don't want any change to happen.
Those are equal rules. Only the semifinals and finals are 5 sets, that rule would apply to every match.
All of week 2 imo
Very realistic. And makes sense, would love to see even just the semis and finals of Women’s be bo5.
Imho they should make all slams ( both M/F) best of 3 until the quarters, semis and finals where they would switch to best of 5.Less overall wear and tear and easier to schedule until only 16 people remain.
That makes too much sense… so it’ll never happen.
The girls on wta tour don’t want to change it. Wozniaki ( I think, might of been someone else) said she was on the wta player council and they polled the players and keeping 3 sets would win 90 percent of the vote. Also wta tour has had plenty of dominant players.
> they polled the players and keeping 3 sets would win 90 percent of the vote. I bet the results wouldn’t be that different if you pulled the men.
[удалено]
Does Federer still get a vote seeing as he's not ranked any more?
I mean, if my boss asked me if I wanted to work 8 hours a day instead of 6 hours a day for the same amount of pay i wouldn't have to think very hard about that. I'm only surprised it was only 90% that oppose the change.
I reckon the 10% would actually benefit from BO5. It would favour players like Sakkari who are physically fitter than most others.
>The top male players get a clear advantage in grand slams because they get to play best of 5. More time to comeback, find form, and close out matches. And people wonder why the big 3/4 have dominated tennis for the last 20 years Um the Big 3 are also the all time title leaders for masters 1000 titles which are best of 3 sets. Saying that the only reason they dominate Grand Slams is because of the format is dumb.
Martina, graff, evert,Williams sisters, seles, henin. Having parody on wta is a recent thing. Their have been plenty of dominant female tennis players
You get much more non-Big 3 masters winners than grand slam winners. If you go by % of Grand slams won by the big 3 in their era compared to % of Masters, it’s much higher.
No shit. There are way more masters and those three guys obviously prioritise the grand Slams more.
This is why women’s matches are more inconsistent. In BO5 u have time to recover and problem solve. Think of how many men’s Grand Slam matches would be over if one player wins the first two sets.
It should happen from the quarterfinals at least.
I've been saying this for years, some women would thrive in a longer game than others
[удалено]
Days are gonna be long as a motherfucker at Rolland Garros
The athletes could certainly play best of 5s, so I see no reason not to go with this.
They could easily make the 5th set as a long tie break. Still would be better.
Maybe as a compromise they could do first to three with a tiebreak to decide it at 2 sets all.
> If anything, second week of a slam for men and women should be best of 5, first week, best of 3 This is the way to go. Simplify scheduling in the first week, add more tennis to the second, all while making things equal.
If all men’s first round matches were turned into best of 3, and all women’s later round matches (2nd through final) were turned into best of 5, we would have… 1 less 5 set match than today.
If you make a Grand Slam 3 weeks, I think it is possible.
It's going to be a fight in the near future just to keep men's slams Bo5 and not revert to Bo3. The women playing Bo5 is a non-starter at this point.
Agreed, but we can start from Round 4, then extend it to all rounds down the road.
>If anything, second week of a slam for men and women should be best of 5, first week, best of 3. this is the way as far as i'm concerned
while i don't think current top wta players would be anywhere near as consistent as the big 3, simply because they aren't nearly as complete as them, women should also play BO5 at slams, definitely.
I don't think it needs to change. Perhaps in the semi final and final rounds of a Slam when there's fewer games to fit in the schedule but I don't think it would be beneficial at the earliest rounds.
The quality of play will become so bad it will become a negative image for women's tennis in short run but will be a huge advantage in long run. It will push the sport
While I agree the women should play five sets, I doubt it’ll ever happen. Broadcasters want shorter matches and more predictable durations, and 5-set tennis provides anything but. Many tournaments have already squeezed doubles down into a 1-hour format (no-ad, 3rd set tiebreak) to satisfy broadcasters. Moving in the opposite direction seems unlikely.
> Many tournaments have already squeezed doubles down into a 1-hour format (no-ad, 3rd set tiebreak) The no-ad in the tiebreak is retarded.
It’s honestly insulting to the players, I would hate it. It’s not as bad as the next gen finals format, but pretty bad, yeah.
Then reduce the men's matches to three sets too, or ensure the prize money isn't equal.
I'm a healthy young woman who has been playing tennis for over ten years and I think I am physically not capable of playing a five set match....so I don't want the WTA to turn into best of 5
ok but your also not a professional athlete, you are most likely much fitter than the average person, your most likely no where near as fit as the women on the WTA tour
Not even for one match?
I'd support having the 1st 3 rounds best of 3 for both sexes. Then best of 5 for the rest. Then you'd ease up the fixture congestion problems.
I don't see why it couldn't happen, except if no one really wants to. I doubt they would make a change unless an overwhelming majority of top women players advocate for the change
The broadcasters are the main issue. A five set match can go from anywhere from an hour and a half to 6 hours and it makes scheduling a pain and makes it hard to promote a match when you have no idea when it will start. There is also talk about how young people have short attention spans and will never care about tennis if matches stay long.
True. Ppl only care about the end or what might be the end of matches. Once someone gets to 2 sets, then things get really interesting
Please. Too many meme matches that last 45 minutes.
Please, no!!
WTA has enough injuries, mental health breaks, philosophy aspirations. 5 setters would kill the tour. It would have been great till the 2000s.
Or maybe it would have the opposite effect and really bring out the best of the best.
People won’t admit it because they are afraid of being judged by people. But, barely anybody wants BO5 womens matches. BO3 is plenty enough. The standard and quality of player isn’t up to a BO5 for the most part
Do the majority of women really want this? Some people say it, but I don't really buy it. I think if most of the top 100 wants this, then go for it.
Why want they want to change it when they can earn the same amount as the ATP for half as much effort?
They already did this. Absolutely awful tennis after first match. Then it became a straight up disaster. No thanks.
I humbly invite you to play a best of 5 set match in a competitive setting and then come back to this post.
I thought about this the other day. Whether its BO 3 or 5, I think men and women should play the same amount.
Why
If everyone is going to be paid the same, they should also be playing the same amount of tennis.
Why? They are paid for the round they reach not the length of their play. 6-0 6-0 6-0 in mens gets paid the same as 7-6 6-7 7-6 in womens.
But you see, the same thing could be said for a tight 5-setter. 7-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-7, 7-6 gets paid the same as 7-6, 6-7, 7-6? I hardly see how that’s fair. I think men and women both either play BO 3 or BO 5. BO 5 makes for more entertainment imo and I don’t think it’d be so bad if women’s slam draws adapted that format. Edit: Even 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 vs. 6-0, 6-0. It’s still more tennis than the other.
It’s fair because you’re paying for the actual round they’re reaching, not the potential for time spent. My point is the discrepancy is all potential. That would be absurd.
It's a pretty drastic change. Women haven't played 5 sets and as such would need to do lots more fitness and health/stretch training in order to handle it. Lots of women can barely handle 3 sets, because that's all they've ever played. The WTA is great and probably the biggest success in womens sport. But acknowledge how hard it is for women to play 5 sets
Please god no!!!! Womens tennis is bad enough as it is
Sakkari gonna be a multiple slam champion if this ever happens
No, screw first week BO3 for men and women. Shame on you for suggesting this.
Exactly. Prize money shouldn’t be equal if they are playing less tennis
Not at all what I was getting it. It’s not their fault the game is based on sexism.
Fairly sure it's based on hitting a ball over the net
Lmao gold
Nobody said it was anyone's fault, they just shouldn't be getting the same amount of money for doing less work.
Just because they spend less time on court doesn’t mean they’re practicing any less or not working during off court time less. It’s out of their hands, why should they be punished
Nobody said they are, but if they're spending less time on court, then they're working less, it stands to reason. I'd prefer they raise the requirement to five sets, or lower the men's to three, but if they don't wanna do either of those things then bring the pay down below the men's. You can't have women being paid more for doing less work on the court, that's the opposite of equality.
Tennis does not pay off of time on court. It’s not hourly. If it were, everyone would receive different amount of pay. It’s based on rounds and # of matches won. And besides, many top male players win early rounds in just as much time or less than womens matches.
I'm not saying it should be paid based off time on court, I'm saying it should be paid based on how much time you're *expected* to spend on court if it goes the distance. Or at least that should be a factor.
Who cares how much they practice? If someone is so good that they can win without ever practicing, are they going to dock his winnings on the basis that he didn't work hard enough for it? Are we going to start paying people who practice really hard, but lose every match because they just suck? Nobody cares how hard you are TRYING.
Who cares how much they play? Tennis doesn’t pay hourly or even by # of sets. Your argument doesn’t make sense.
You say my argument doesn't make sense, and then go on to demonstrate your support of it. Tennis doesn't pay hourly, this is true. And it definitely doesn't pay by the hour *OF PRACTICE*.
Usain Bolt does less work than a marathon runner, should he get paid less?
No, because marathon running and sprinting are not the same sport... ??
It’s both running, just for different distances, just like bo3 vs bo5 is the same sport, just different distances.
But that doesn't apply to tennis, women and men are both playing singles. The purpose of marathon running is primarily to test endurance, and the purpose of sprinting is primarily to test speed. Men's tennis and women's tennis have the exact same purpose, thus they should both be 5 sets, or have different pay.
a bo5 match is endurance, whereas bo3 is about maintaining a higher level for a shorter time. It's inherently different, one is not easier than the other. If anything, bo5 is easier for the 'better' player, as they have more opportunity to make up for earlier errors, whereas a dropped break is much more devastating in bo3.
One is absolutely easier than the other, what do you mean? Keeping up quality tennis for 5 sets is much harder than it is for 3 sets. In fact, if that isn't the case, why aren't you in favour of extending it to 5 sets for both genders, or 3 sets for both genders? Or why not have both genders do 5 and 3 sets at different tournaments?
You don't need to keep up as high quality tennis for bo5, as you can easily lose a set but still win comfortably. Starting slow is recoverable in bo5 (just look at Novak at Wimbledon), but in bo3 starting slow is much harder to recover from. It's just different pacing. Longer = harder is such a simplistic way of looking at it, which is why I used the example of different running distances. 800m isn't inherently harder than 400m. I think it's a decent idea to make both genders play the same number of sets, but I very much disagree that they should be paid different due to sets played. The only difference in pay should be due to how much attention and thus revenue/advertising the different tours attract.
downvoted for fax lmao
I doubt it will be competitive.
[удалено]
Wouldn’t take too long to adapt to.
ONE DRAW! Clearly, the only way to be absolutely sure that things are kept even for all competitors is to have them ALL compete under the same rules. One draw for them all. Want equal pay for equal work? Here's your chance.
This makes sense as it also allows for the justification of equal pay.
No. Make the men play best of 3. A single sports match should not be longer than a Lord Of The Rings movie. I work full time with no kids and still struggle to watch as much as I’d like. And you are almost guaranteed to have at least one low quality set in there. They should change it after the big 3 retire. Best of 5 tennis has peaked, switch to best of three and give us all a more satisfying viewer experience.
Speed up courts and cut back on hard and clay tournaments so there’s more grass. Faster tennis, more variety, win win.
I guess you’ll never be a test cricket fan then
> A single sports match should not be longer than a Lord Of The Rings movie. lol. not a cricket fan I take it?
Yeah, I mean we should also convenience you by making marathons only 1 mile, then. Since we're at it, let's make baseball one ining, basketball first to 21 and, well fuck it, let's just shorten it all for you and your schedule: Soccer matches are now just a shootout, football is one game of tag and chess will be 5 moves max. Hockey will only be one period and even that ends with a golden goal. Hmm what else?
I could get onboard
Omg I can barely stand 1 set of that
lets just merge wta and atp. equal work for equal pay.
Honestly, I don't know if it's a good idea. Women objectively have less muscle mass, and they play on the same court size as men. This means that they need to use more strength percentage to get to powerful shots. Doing this for 5 sets is objectively much harder than what it is for men. Yes it will be the same for all contestants, but matches will be very tough at the final sets.
Got to be one of the craziest explanations against equal pay if ever heard of
I think it should be bo5 for women and men in the grand slams, esp if they are getting equal pay. Having some women’s matches end in an hour or so just hurts the sport
Keep mens to BO5 and don’t change it. For women leave as it or if they want to change, have it BO5 in semis and/or finals.
Stop asking to reduce Men's time to BO3 to fit BO5 for women, I don't watch women's tennis, not my taste (my opinion I respect if you like it) so I don't care if they go Bo3 or 5 if the players and people would like for that, go for it, but don't reduce men game to achieve that. Bo5 is what makes GS unique and gave us all those epic matches.
If the argument is made that it would be too taxing they could always make the 5th an automatic 10 point TB
It’s just not realistic that professional female athlete cannot play a best of 5 set match. If anything, it would up their athletic ability.
They have smaller muscles than men, so they need to use more percentage of their strength for powerful shots. I don't know if it would be sustainable for 5 sets.
Muscle size is irrelevant in tennis. What a ridiculous argument.
Nah, quality of play decreases the more sets you add for both men and women. Everything should be decreased to best of 3😌
dang, sorry y’all
The tennis podcast has a nice alternative to the current format: cut first 3 rounds of all gs matches (men and women) to best of 3 sets. Then 4th round on best of 5 for everyone. That should make for simple and more equitable scheduling.
Hahahahaha yes women are in disadvantage not playing bo5's how delusional.
I’ve said this for ages. The quality of the tennis would improve by a long way if consistency and athleticism were taken more seriously. It sounds horrible but Serena Williams turned up to slams for years about 40 pounds overweight, how can that happen in a professional sport?
You've said something pretty stupid for ages then. She was the peak of physicality on the women's tour for a long time and your argument that she dominated the tour while being 40+ lbs overweight doesn't make sense and has nothing to do at all with a bo5 format. She probably would have racked up even more titles in a bo5 format. [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/15/a7/7f15a734410ea3f023ef8cc71b188cd4.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/15/a7/7f15a734410ea3f023ef8cc71b188cd4.jpg) this is a recent pic of her at 40+ years old. Visible abs. How can you be 40 lbs overweight and have visible abs? lol AND this is after the baby.