PDA

View Full Version : Should The Women Have A Five Setter GS Finals Match?


Freewoman33
Jun 12th, 2006, 03:10 PM
I think so. I think the reason why some of the women's matches are boring during the finals of GS tournaments is because after the second or third sets, they're just getting warmed up. I believe that adding two more set would be great for women's tennis. It'll provide a chance for the players to actually get more involved in the match, which I most certainly think would make it more interesting.

Take for example the men's final yesterday, Federer and Nadal didn't start actually going until the third set. What if the men's matches were three setters also, it would surely be boring.

I think the women can handle two more sets during the finals of a GS. At the least, it would give the audience what they paid for.

alfonsojose
Jun 12th, 2006, 03:31 PM
:cool:

XaDavK_Kapri
Jun 12th, 2006, 03:31 PM
Yes I totally agree. The players battling in the final wouldn't freak out as easily after losing the first set. They'd be playing with less pressure in the second set and less grand slam finals would be straight sets blowouts.

AaronJoyB
Jun 12th, 2006, 03:32 PM
yes

alfajeffster
Jun 12th, 2006, 03:54 PM
Absolutely! Not only would it put a damper on the equal pay for equal play issue, it would also serve to reward the handful of players who have worked on their fitness, stamina, and worked themselves into peak condition. Nobody can keep up flashy play for 3 straight sets without suffering some kind of let down, and I also think it would give thinkers like Hingis a better chance of getting their teeth into a match versus being blown off the court in two sets.

mike/topgun
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:06 PM
You'may be right, but I am not so sure. However it'd be really great to see some 5 setters - I don't remember any 3-5 sets battle since '98 YEC final.
Still there's the problem of fitness - most of the players *die* after 2 hours of play.
How would it look if after 3 sets in a GS final we'd see slumping playes just praying for the sudden death tiebreak or so?
Take for example the men's final yesterday, Federer and Nadal didn't start actually going until the third set. What if the men's matches were three setters also, it would surely be boring.

Oh, my - it was such a boring/low quality/nervous match that I would never ever use it as a particular example.:tape:

Viktymise
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Definatley, for eg the finals LenaD played in i think would have been more exciting if they went to 5 sets

azmad_88
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:12 PM
definately...YES

mc8114
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:14 PM
Yes, that will be pretty cool. They used to have a five set final at YEC.

Paneru
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:18 PM
ITA!
Great idea!

That was part of my rationale for the pro's
and con's of men playing best of 5 and
women playing best of 3.

I also think that this would be a nice
way to ease into women possibly playing
best of 5 only in the Slams like most of
the men's tournaments.

RAA
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:22 PM
I don't know.. sometimes on the men's side I find the 5 setters Soooooooo boring.. you start watching, can leave, have breakfast, do some laundry, go for a run and come back and they are still playing.

even though i'm a big tennis fan, I prefer the best of 3 even for finals. you know you are in for 90-120 mins most of the time..

I would like to say that the GS finals produce high enough quality that having them play longer would be good, but I can't say that in all honesty.

and on the mens side sometimes I think when a player goes down a break he sometimes just concedes that set because in best of 5 he knows he has more chances. on the women's side, I think it makes it much more exciting to have so much more riding on each set.

harloo
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:27 PM
I think so. I think the reason why some of the women's matches are boring during the finals of GS tournaments is because after the second or third sets, they're just getting warmed up. I believe that adding two more set would be great for women's tennis. It'll provide a chance for the players to actually get more involved in the match, which I most certainly think would make it more interesting.

Take for example the men's final yesterday, Federer and Nadal didn't start actually going until the third set. What if the men's matches were three setters also, it would surely be boring.

I think the women can handle two more sets during the finals of a GS. At the least, it would give the audience what they paid for.

I don't disagree with the fact that the women should play 5 setters in the final, but I also feel like the men should only play 3 setters until the semis. The competition each round is more tougher for the men and shortening their matches would probably make the long matches more exciting to the general public. JMO.

Philbo
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:33 PM
You'may be right, but I am not so sure. However it'd be really great to see some 5 setters - I don't remember any 3-5 sets battle since '98 YEC final.
Still there's the problem of fitness - most of the players *die* after 2 hours of play.
How would it look if after 3 sets in a GS final we'd see slumping playes just praying for the sudden death tiebreak or so?


Oh, my - it was such a boring/low quality/nervous match that I would never ever use it as a particular example.:tape:

I agree with this post.

I like the IDEA of it but in reality I don’t think it would translate into better grand slam finals.

IMO - virtually ALL of the Chase Champs finals that went to 5 sets were pretty boring 5th sets. The match was over and decided by then based on who could still run! There was no tension or excitement as you could tell one player was just completely exhausted and going through the motions..

The Steffi vs Hingis 5 set final was a 6-0 5th set.

The steffi vs Huber 5 set final was a blowout in the 5th

The Monica vs Gabby 5 set final was a GREAT match but the 5th was very suspensful, think it was 6-2 from memory.

I think most of the 5 set matches have about 3 sets in them that were fully competitive, the other sets were ones where a player got behind 1 or 2 breaks and sort of gave up til the next set. The Hingis/steffi match is the best example of this.

strawberry.babou
Jun 12th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Yes!

LoveFifteen
Jun 12th, 2006, 06:09 PM
No, things are good the way they are now. Think back to all four of 2005's Slam finals. Could you imagine how badly a best 3 of 5 format would have hurt them?

AO - We'd have to watch as Serena handed the exhausted Davenport TWO bagels.

FO - 6-1 6-1 .... 6-1 :scared:

W - That match was perfect. And it was already very, very long. Another set, and Lindsay would've collapsed from the back injury, I think. Better that it ended with high quality.

USO - Ugh ... that match was so hideous ... do we really need to see Pierce get thrashed in 3 sets?

Viktymise
Jun 12th, 2006, 06:48 PM
No, things are good the way they are now. Think back to all four of 2005's Slam finals. Could you imagine how badly a best 3 of 5 format would have hurt them?

AO - We'd have to watch as Serena handed the exhausted Davenport TWO bagels.

FO - 6-1 6-1 .... 6-1 :scared:

W - That match was perfect. And it was already very, very long. Another set, and Lindsay would've collapsed from the back injury, I think. Better that it ended with high quality.

USO - Ugh ... that match was so hideous ... do we really need to see Pierce get thrashed in 3 sets?
Ye but i think the 04 finals could have benefitted from it particularly at the french i think lena would have won RG if it was in 5

No.1Hingis
Jun 12th, 2006, 06:56 PM
With all consecuenses It can bring.. I guess YEP.. was so sad to follow Final RG and.. some others match in 2 sets.. maybe if the match is bored.. this factor can be extend to 3, 4 or 5 sets.. but I prefer give opponent to play her best.. I guess this would be more positive than make a real damage...

Maybe the FIGHT HEART of some Top players can be really showed at that form.. and dont give it up early..

FrenchY52
Jun 12th, 2006, 07:11 PM
It would be funny ! lol

LoveFifteen
Jun 12th, 2006, 07:41 PM
In my opinion, there's only one Slam final since the beginning of 2004 that could've seriously benefitted from 5 sets ... the AO 2004 final between Kim and Justine.

fifiricci
Jun 12th, 2006, 08:15 PM
I think they should experiment with it. Finals may be less one sided if the players know they are in for a long haul and the extra set space would give them time to get their heads/games together.

And suggesting that women don't have the stamina to play 5 sets is frigging ridiculous in this day and age :rolleyes:

Jum_p_Over
Jun 12th, 2006, 08:16 PM
If you look at the RG women's final this year, the 2 girls were getting tired late in the second set. Imagine what would happen if they had 2 play 5 sets... I don't think enough people on the tour have the endurance

RJWCapriati
Jun 12th, 2006, 08:22 PM
No, best of 3 is fine - I also think the men should have best of 3 - only best of 5 in the final round.

VeeDaQueen
Jun 12th, 2006, 08:25 PM
NO! when they did it at YEC, there were plenty of 6-0 sets because the players would regroup between sets :rolleyes: The score would probably be something like: 7-5 1-6 6-4 0-6 6-4 :lol:

LoveFifteen
Jun 12th, 2006, 08:29 PM
No, best of 3 is fine - I also think the men should have best of 3 - only best of 5 in the final round.

I agree. I think that match quality would improve if they would hold off on 5-setters until the QFs or the SFs.

Freewoman33
Jun 13th, 2006, 03:14 AM
NO! when they did it at YEC, there were plenty of 6-0 sets because the players would regroup between sets :rolleyes: The score would probably be something like: 7-5 1-6 6-4 0-6 6-4 :lol:

Don't you think that the women are fitter now and have more endurance to last five sets.

Like someone else said, I think they should at least experiment with it.

hingisGOAT
Jun 13th, 2006, 03:23 AM
no; a much better idea is to make the men's matches best of three :help:

MisterQ
Jun 13th, 2006, 03:45 AM
I think it's a great idea.

There are so many possible twists and turns and momentum shifts that can happen in a 5-setter. Should it come down to a fifth set, it is truly about heart.

Mother_Marjorie
Jun 13th, 2006, 03:51 AM
Absolutely! Not only would it put a damper on the equal pay for equal play issue, it would also serve to reward the handful of players who have worked on their fitness, stamina, and worked themselves into peak condition. Nobody can keep up flashy play for 3 straight sets without suffering some kind of let down, and I also think it would give thinkers like Hingis a better chance of getting their teeth into a match versus being blown off the court in two sets.

Considering all the lingering health issues of the top players, it would only serve to increase retirements and injuries as a result of the best-of-five format.

Clijsters is retiring because of injuries, Hingis has already had to once, Davenport is on the cusp, Venus and Serena's injuries are well documented, Justine has lingering health issues, etc., etc........

Why make it more physically demanding for players already hindered by a season too long????

Zauber
Jun 13th, 2006, 04:47 AM
no definitly not.
Its not really fair to the players.
They dont play five setters regularily.
Its quite a different proposition.
They tried it at the year end before.
For advertising and money reasons, and perhaps to justify equal prize money.
Martina was the only woman(?) who did not mind, I think.
It was a bust.

selyoink
Jun 13th, 2006, 05:29 AM
Absolutely not. The women already struggle to maintain good form through a two or three set final. Imagine how bad the form would be in a 5th set. Players would have well over 100 errors and it would not be good tv in most circumstances.

Mightymirza
Jun 13th, 2006, 05:29 AM
i dont think so...Fivesetters are BORRRINNNGGGGGG thats one of reasons I love womens tennis..Matches dont go on forever...I like the current system...

LoveFifteen
Jun 13th, 2006, 05:39 AM
Absolutely not. The women already struggle to maintain good form through a two or three set final. Imagine how bad the form would be in a 5th set. Players would have well over 100 errors and it would not be good tv in most circumstances.

Could you imagine a 5-set match between Hantuchova and Mirza? :scared:

I think there would be over 200 unforced errors between them.

Mightymirza
Jun 13th, 2006, 05:47 AM
Could you imagine a 5-set match between Hantuchova and Mirza? :scared:

I think there would be over 200 unforced errors between them.
Well thats considering they both reach GS final.. :tape: anyways they made 150 UEs together in the match they played and it was a 3 setter...Sure gonna go upto 300 for 5 setter as match progresses they tendto do moreand more UEs

LoveFifteen
Jun 13th, 2006, 05:57 AM
Well thats considering they both reach GS final.. :tape: anyways they made 150 UEs together in the match they played and it was a 3 setter...Sure gonna go upto 300 for 5 setter as match progresses they tendto do moreand more UEs

:haha:

I would rather go to the dentist ... twice ... than watch a five-setter between any of the WTA's unforced error queens.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 13th, 2006, 06:00 AM
A 5-setter GS Final Match for Women = WTA players retiring in the 4th and 5th set due to fainting and passing out.

LoveFifteen
Jun 13th, 2006, 06:03 AM
A 5-setter GS Final Match for Women = WTA players retiring in the 4th and 5th set due to fainting and passing out.

Oh, we don't need 5 sets to see that ... :devil:

Barbarela
Jun 13th, 2006, 11:42 AM
yes!

So Disrespectful
Jun 13th, 2006, 01:10 PM
I think it would be a good idea, but stamina actually is a concern. Mauresmo and Henin would win every slam final :tape:

ceiling_fan
Jun 13th, 2006, 01:16 PM
Nah, quality of play will decline.

The "fitter" player will probably win over the more skilled one i reckon.

TonyP
Jun 13th, 2006, 02:27 PM
Sure, then some of the players could go for the 100 unforced error figure in a single match.

alfajeffster
Jun 13th, 2006, 02:34 PM
I think it would be a good idea, but stamina actually is a concern. Mauresmo and Henin would win every slam final :tape:

I don't think I can stomach the thought...

Edith09
Jun 14th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Yes, I have been thinking about for a long time, 5 finals (grand slams + championship) wouldn´t hurt anyone. So I would love to see that.

Corswandt
Jun 14th, 2006, 07:38 PM
I'm against best of five, both for men and women, on any stage of any competition, finals included. So the answer for me is no.

DragonFlame
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:12 PM
yeah, make the best players there are tired even more, make sure they get more injuries and shorten their careers!

a definate NO from me.

sfselesfan
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:17 PM
Certain (unhealthy) players would never win a GS Championship. It would benefit players like Clijsters.

SF

SJW
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:19 PM
No. Two sets of a French Open final is bad enough for the women.
Why subject the crowd to more torture.

Aaron.
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:20 PM
No..GS Finals Suck most of the time
Henin-Hardenne def Kuznetsova 6-3 6-3 6-1 FO Final

hablo
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:42 PM
That would be good for Momo.

samsung101
Jun 14th, 2006, 08:58 PM
Sure, why not.
The final only.
Demand equal money,
do a little extra work.

You know going in, that
Grand Slam finals require it.

We are talking about athletes
right? Many over 5'10", many
over 6'0", trained athletes. They
are not wallflowers, they can do it.
At least try it.

Mauresmo and Henin don't win every
slam now, why would they then? Players
who start out slow, could fight back.
Players who choke, have more chance
to do it.

Are they not supposed to aim to be fit now?
Maybe some might work harder at it. The
men do it, why not the women in 1 match
of the tournament.