PDA

View Full Version : Should women play 3 out of 5 sets in Grand Slam finals?


AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:34 PM
One thing I've never liked about women's tennis is that a lot of the Grand Slam finals are WAY TOO SHORT. I'm not talking so much about today's final, because it was a pretty decent length considering it was only 2 sets, but some of the finals have just been ridiculously short. There have been many that have gone by in less than an hour, and that Stefi vs Zvereva final they mentioned at one point during today's final only lasted about 35 minutes! I think it can be extremely anti-climactic to look forward to a final for two weeks only to have it end so quickly, and I've always been very disappointed whenever this happens. Just once I'd love to see an epic 5 hour Grand Slam final in women's tennis. Wouldn't that be amazing??? So that brings me to my question for today:

Should women play 3 out of 5 sets in Gland Slam finals?

And if not, what is the argument against it? Do people believe that women just aren't capable of playing 5 sets for some reason? Please explain your answer if you say no. I think this should be interesting...

toxina90
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Absolutely, not just finals, all the matches should be best of 5 sets, to be fair, if the girls have complained for EQUAL pay, they should be willing to play EQUAL matches.

Its too easy for the women, and in my opinion there would be so much more excitement and the players would learn and develop more with longer matches.

Destiny
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:40 PM
The women's game is not like that!!

no

mykarma
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:41 PM
One thing I've never liked about women's tennis is that a lot of the Grand Slam finals are WAY TOO SHORT. I'm not talking so much about today's final, because it was a pretty decent length considering it was only 2 sets, but some of the finals have just been ridiculously short. There have been many that have gone by in less than an hour, and that Stefi vs Zvereva final they mentioned at one point during today's final only lasted about 35 minutes! I think it can be extremely anti-climactic to look forward to a final for two weeks only to have it end so quickly, and I've always been very disappointed whenever this happens. Just once I'd love to see an epic 5 hour Grand Slam final in women's tennis. Wouldn't that be amazing??? So that brings me to my question for today:

Should women play 3 out of 5 sets in Gland Slam finals?

And if not, what is the argument against it? Do people believe that women just aren't capable of playing 5 sets for some reason? Please explain your answer if you say no. I think this should be interesting...
No and I wish men played 3 sets.

^bibi^
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:42 PM
Definitely not.. and men should play in 3sets too... 5 setters are sooooooooo boring

serenus_2k8
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:45 PM
Ye 5 sets are crappy, but for a champion to lose 2 sets and be out automatically is lame too.

Vaidisova Ruled
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:46 PM
NO
Women are not men. If women had to play 3 out of 5 sets it would means that the stronger woman would have won the final and not the better player

Tennisballova
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:48 PM
Nope. That would physically be too much for them, I'm affraid.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:48 PM
5 setters are sooooooooo boring

Early round 5 setters can be boring, not 5 set FINALS. I'd like someone to name an example of a single 5 set Grand Slam Final that was boring. That's completely ridiculous.

DownTheLine21
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:51 PM
The "EQUAL PRIZE MONEY = EQUAL SETS" argument is beyond ridiculous. Some people don't seem to realize that the length of the match isn't everything. A best of 3 match can be much more mentally (and even physically) demanding than a best of 5 match. It's all relative to the player and the match.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:52 PM
NO
Women are not men. If women had to play 3 out of 5 sets it would means that the stronger woman would have won the final and not the better player

It has nothing to do with strength, it's all about endurance. And for the record, I've never seen anything to suggest that women have any less endurance than men do.

Also, what's wrong with the more physically fit player having an advantage?

okayawesome21
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:53 PM
Absolutely, not just finals, all the matches should be best of 5 sets, to be fair, if the girls have complained for EQUAL pay, they should be willing to play EQUAL matches.

Its too easy for the women, and in my opinion there would be so much more excitement and the players would learn and develop more with longer matches.

funny, i was watching the tennis channel a couple of days ago and they did this segment on wimbledon and part of it was on equal pay. djokovic made it clear that he was pretty upset when he found out (probably because he spent like four-five hours on two matches last year) because he truly believes that women should play five setters too, and youzny(sp.?) basically said the same thing (i think...his accent was thick). while federer said that its great for womens tennis and he respects what they do and good for them and roddick said that hes just happy to be playing tennis as a profession and he can care less how much money he makes, as long as he can keep playing.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:55 PM
The "EQUAL PRIZE MONEY = EQUAL SETS" argument is beyond ridiculous. Some people don't seem to realize that the length of the match isn't everything. A best of 3 match can be much more mentally (and even physically) demanding than a best of 5 match. It's all relative to the player and the match.

I think the equal prize money = equal sets argument is perfectly logical, but the argument you just made makes no sense to me. Obviously a 5 set match between 2 players is always going to be more demanding than a 3 set match between the same 2 players. How could it not be?

-Sonic-
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:56 PM
I believe that if we made womens matches best of 5, a tiny tiny percentage of the matches would have a different outcome.

I think coming from 2-0 sets down or 2-1 down to win would be far more infrequent than it is on the mens tour - its hardly 'frequent' on the mens tour, but for women it'd be even less.

DownTheLine21
Jun 7th, 2008, 05:58 PM
I think the equal prize money = equal sets argument is perfectly logical, but the argument you just made makes no sense to me. Obviously a 5 set match between 2 players is always going to be more demanding than a 3 set match between the same 2 players. How could it not be?

I'm just saying that too many people automatically assume that best of 5 matches are more phyically and mentally demanding. It's all relative. Nadal winning 6-1 6-1 6-1 (Best of 5) is less demanding than a 6-7 7-6 7-6 victory (Best of 3). In the second match, the players had to fight much harder (and for probably a lot longer, time-wise). Do they deserve less money?

SharapovaFan16
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:01 PM
A case can be made for both sides. I think all Grand Slams should be best of 5 sets & all Masters Series events. Then the rest of the tournaments should be best of 3 sets. Grand Slams are the epitome of the sport. I'm not worried about equal pay whatever, but I just strongly feel both men and women should play best of 5 sets.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:02 PM
I believe that if we made womens matches best of 5, a tiny tiny percentage of the matches would have a different outcome.

I think coming from 2-0 sets down or 2-1 down to win would be far more infrequent than it is on the mens tour - its hardly 'frequent' on the mens tour, but for women it'd be even less.

I don't think there'd be any significant difference between men's and women's matches in this regard. This would imply that women who win early sets gain more of a mental advantage over their opponents than men who win early sets, and I don't see any reason why that would be the case.

InsideOut.
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:02 PM
djokovic made it clear that he was pretty upset when he found out (probably because he spent like four-five hours on two matches last year) because he truly believes that women should play five setters too, and youzny(sp.?) basically said the same thing (i think...his accent was thick). while federer said that its great for womens tennis and he respects what they do and good for them and roddick said that hes just happy to be playing tennis as a profession and he can care less how much money he makes, as long as he can keep playing.

Djokovic and Youzhny :fiery:

Fed...classy and diplomatic. A-Rod...very enthusiastic and nice mentality :worship:

InsideOut.
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:04 PM
I don't think there'd be any significant difference between men's and women's matches in this regard. This would imply that women who win early sets gain more of a mental advantage over their opponents than men who win early sets, and I don't see any reason why that would be the case.

Well, we would just have more retirements so it would be back to best of 3 anyway :shrug: Some of the WTA players are just pretty unfit and they definitely won't last long enough for a 5-setter.

Olórin
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:09 PM
In finals it's quite rare in mens tennis for it to go to five sets. When it does, it's a really good match. However that doesn't account for the other 90% of matches where you're just prolonging a pretty average match by 45 mins or an hour and holding another match up: another potential battle with different dynamics, tactics and sense of rivalry.

If I was paying for tickets to a court for a day, I would prefer to see a few different matches with different players of average quality rather than two matches of average quality that simply went on for longer.

Keep the men's like it is, it's tradition. But I see no reason to change the women's.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:10 PM
Made perfect sense to me. Re-read it a few times.

Well explain it to me then. How can a 2 out of 3 set match between 2 players be more demanding than a 3 out of 5 set match between the same two players on the same surface? I can't imagine any scenario where that would be the case.

Also, this argument totally contradicts the argument about women not being physically able to play 5 sets. If playing 2 out of 3 is just as demanding as playing 3 out 5, then they might as well play 3 out 5 then. What would be the argument against doing that? In other words, why have 3 out of 5 for men and 2 out of 3 for women if both are equally demanding? You'd basically be accomplishing no purpose while at the same time making women look inferior.

toxina90
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:13 PM
Well explain it to me then. How can a 2 out of 3 set match between 2 players be more demanding than a 3 out of 5 set match between the same two players on the same surface? I can't imagine any scenario where that would be the case.

Also, this argument totally contradicts the argument about women not being physically able to play 5 sets. If playing 2 out of 3 is just as demanding as playing 3 out 5, then they might as well play 3 out 5 then. What would be the argument against doing that? In other words, why have 3 out of 5 for men and 2 out of 3 for women if both are equally demanding? You'd basically be accomplishing no purpose while at the same time making women look inferior.

I agree, you are crystal clear.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:13 PM
In finals it's quite rare in mens tennis for it to go to five sets. When it does, it's a really good match. However that doesn't account for the other 90% of matches where you're just prolonging a pretty average match by 45 mins or an hour and holding another match up: another potential battle with different dynamics, tactics and sense of rivalry.

If I was paying for tickets to a court for a day, I would prefer to see a few different matches with different players of average quality rather than two matches of average quality that simply went on for longer.

Keep the men's like it is, it's tradition. But I see no reason to change the women's.

I'm only talking about the Final, so there wouldn't be any match afterwards. Well maybe a doubles match, but I think most people would rather see a longer final.... especially since either way they'd still get to see the doubles match anyway.

DownTheLine21
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:16 PM
I'm only talking about the Final, so there wouldn't be any match afterwards. Well maybe a doubles match, but I think most people would rather see a longer final.... especially since either way they'd still get to see the doubles match anyway.

I can see your point about "only the final." I guess you're thinking of the ATP Master Series events (Best of 3 until the final, which is Best of 5). This would be interesting, and I guess it would help eliminate the nerves that many WTA players experience in GS Finals.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:17 PM
Well, we would just have more retirements so it would be back to best of 3 anyway :shrug: Some of the WTA players are just pretty unfit and they definitely won't last long enough for a 5-setter.

Well, two things. First, I'm only suggesting that they do it in the final, and no one (except for Henin) would retire during a Grand Slam final. Also, this would likely force some of these unfit players to get in better shape, and that would definitely be a good thing.

Olórin
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:31 PM
Well explain it to me then. How can a 2 out of 3 set match between 2 players be more demanding than a 3 out of 5 set match between the same two players on the same surface? I can't imagine any scenario where that would be the case.

Also, this argument totally contradicts the argument about women not being physically able to play 5 sets. If playing 2 out of 3 is just as demanding as playing 3 out 5, then they might as well play 3 out 5 then. What would be the argument against doing that? In other words, why have 3 out of 5 for men and 2 out of 3 for women if both are equally demanding? You'd basically be accomplishing no purpose while at the same time making women look inferior.

No-one said 2/3 was equally demanding to five set matches unequivocally, the poster made plenty of qualifications: he said it's all relative. Some opponents take more out of each mentally than others, sometimes because of the type of games they play you have a lot of games going to deuce and close sets, where you could in a five set match (as in many I have seen), have a few lopsided sets and very few games going to deuce in those sets. His point was that longer matces does not automatically equal better matches and that three set matches can sometimes be just as exerting, close and entertaining as certain five set matches.

I'm only talking about the Final, so there wouldn't be any match afterwards. Well maybe a doubles match, but I think most people would rather see a longer final.... especially since either way they'd still get to see the doubles match anyway.

I did not know you were only talking about the finals. It is an idea worth considering in that case.

SoClose
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:35 PM
Yes, good idea.If they played 5 sets , the Williams sistres would always win . :)

IanRadi
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Matches would be way more exciting if they've to play 5 sets :)

Geisha
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:37 PM
Yes, good idea.If they played 5 sets , the Williams sistres would always win . :)

:drool::) I'd like to see that more often!

I agree with what the earlier poster said - if they played three out of five, the stronger player would win, not the better one. Nadal won 6-1 6-1 6-1. Why waste energy on the third set when he's clearly kicking ass? Today, Safina looked like she was running out of gas - I don't know how much better a 6-4 6-3 win would be over a 6-4 6-3 6-0 win.

Geisha
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Oh, and I don't even want to think about scheduling, especially in these Major tournaments. It is another one or two hours to fit into the day - the matches would never end.

Sefo
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:39 PM
No, because then I wouldn't want to watch six hour matches either.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 06:56 PM
Oh, and I don't even want to think about scheduling, especially in these Major tournaments. It is another one or two hours to fit into the day - the matches would never end.

Once again, I'm only talking about THE FINALS. If they played 3 out of 5 sets in the women's final it wouldn't effect the scheduling at all.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2008, 07:00 PM
No, because then I wouldn't want to watch six hour matches either.

There would be a maximum of four 5 set matches a year, none of them would go that long, and no one's requiring you to watch the whole thing :)

ASP0315
Jun 7th, 2008, 07:11 PM
I used to be against the "Equal prize money = Equal sets."
But after watching Hingis come out of retirment and get into top ten within 6 motnhs and Davenport come out retirment and defeat #3jankovic and #12 hantuchova to win Bali i changed my mind.
What really baffled me is the how are these so called retired players who doesn't even touch thier rackets for some time able to defeat top ten players. I amire hingis and davenport. good for them that they won.
If steffi graf comes out of retirment and plays tennis she will top ten in no time. It shows there isn't much competion on womens tennis.(with the excepton of few players.)

i'm supporting definetely best of 5 womens finals.(i don't mind best three for the rest of the rounds.)

Dodoboy.
Jun 7th, 2008, 07:39 PM
There are 24 hours in the day.

Chances are the men and women spend the same amount of time working. SO they should get equal pay.

I don't think pay should be directly related to the amount of sets you play, that is silly.

Craigy
Jun 7th, 2008, 07:44 PM
Like they don't get injured enough already. :o

AnomyBC
Jun 8th, 2008, 12:51 AM
Interesting piece of trivia I just uncovered. Did you guys know that the WTA Tour Championships played 3 out of 5 sets in the final between 1984 and 1998? During that time they had three 5 set matches. These were the results:

1990 - Seles d. Sabatini 6-4, 5-7, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
1995 - Graf d. Huber 6-1, 2-6, 6-1, 4-6, 6-3
1996 - Graf d. Hingis 6-3, 4-6, 6-0, 4-6, 6-0

The only match where the outcome changed was Seles vs. Sabatini. Sabatini won 2 of the first 3 sets, but Seles came back and won it in 5. Interesting stuff. I wonder why they went back to 2 out of 3?

cocco80
Jun 8th, 2008, 12:54 AM
There are 24 hours in the day.

Chances are the men and women spend the same amount of time working. SO they should get equal pay.

I don't think pay should be directly related to the amount of sets you play, that is silly.

exactly and with that said - no.

AndreConrad
Jun 8th, 2008, 12:58 AM
No, otherwise we will have man like looking "female" players. It is WTA. Why is it too short? How about 10 sec professional boxing matches?

Kworb
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:04 AM
Why is the equal pay discussion always about Grand Slams? Outside of the Slams they play the same number of sets and the men earn twice as much. At the Slams both sexes provide equal entertainment so they should be paid equally. With these things you don't get paid by the hour. Else concerts would also last longer.

Serenita
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:06 AM
For the finals. YES
Let the men play 3 setters up to the QT.

terjw
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:11 AM
Interesting piece of trivia I just uncovered. Did you guys know that the WTA Tour Championships played 3 out of 5 sets in the final between 1984 and 1998? During that time they had three 5 set matches. These were the results:

1990 - Seles d. Sabatini 6-4, 5-7, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
1995 - Graf d. Huber 6-1, 2-6, 6-1, 4-6, 6-3
1996 - Graf d. Hingis 6-3, 4-6, 6-0, 4-6, 6-0

The only match where the outcome changed was Seles vs. Sabatini. Sabatini won 2 of the first 3 sets, but Seles came back and won it in 5. Interesting stuff. I wonder why they went back to 2 out of 3?

Also have these posters who favour 5 sets in slam finals and the YEC finals ever seen any of these dreadful matches when they had them. In particular the last one above - the Graf vs Hingis in 1996.

Two of the most athletic players in the game. But that was enough for me to say never ever again. Seeing that dreadful last set with the players barely able to move. Graf with back problems and Hingis with cramps. And some of you want that again. :rolleyes:

They've tried it before and it was dreadful. Thank goodness they abandoned that idea for good.

AnomyBC
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:12 AM
There are 24 hours in the day.

Chances are the men and women spend the same amount of time working. SO they should get equal pay.

I don't think pay should be directly related to the amount of sets you play, that is silly.

There's no question that a player needs to work harder to stay in shape to win 3 out of 5 sets, so I don't think what you seem to be implying here is accurate. The truth is, the way things are now, the men DO work harder, simply because they have to work harder to win in the 3 out of 5 set format. So I do think that it would ultimately be more fair if men and women played the same number of sets.

That being said, I think too many of you are getting stuck in this equal pay for equal work business, which isn't what I attended for this thread to be about. As I said in my original post, the main reason why I think they should have women play 3 out of 5 sets in Grand Slam finals is that I think too many of the women's finals are just way too short.

AnomyBC
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:13 AM
For the finals. YES
Let the men play 3 setters up to the QT.

That's another thing I wouldn't mind seeing: Having the men play 2 out of 3 in the early rounds.

AnomyBC
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:19 AM
No, otherwise we will have man like looking "female" players. It is WTA. Why is it too short? How about 10 sec professional boxing matches?

It has nothing to do with being muscular, it would be about building up endurance. And even if it did have a tendency to make the players more muscular, which it wouldn't, there would still only be a maximum of four 5 set matches a year, so I doubt that would have a significant effect on a players appearance. And, not surprisingly, I'm not a fan of 10 second boxing matches either :lol:

AnomyBC
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:29 AM
Also have these posters who favour 5 sets in slam finals and the YEC finals ever seen any of these dreadful matches when they had them. In particular the last one above - the Graf vs Hingis in 1996.

Two of the most athletic players in the game. But that was enough for me to say never ever again. Seeing that dreadful last set with the players barely able to move. Graf with back problems and Hingis with cramps. And some of you want that again.

They've tried it before and it was dreadful. Thank goodness they abandoned that idea for good.

I can't really comment on those matches since I didn't see them, but if the players had a lot of problems then it was probably because they weren't used to playing 5 sets. I don't think there's any physical reason why women would be less able to play 5 sets than men. Again, this isn't an issue of strength, it's an issue of endurance. I don't know of any reason to believe that women have less endurance than men do. Also, 3 matches isn't really enough to draw any conclusions from.

By the way, did you actually see the other 5 set matches, or just the Graf vs. Hingis one? The Seles vs. Sabatini one definitely looks like it would have been interesting.

Andy.
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:39 AM
Personally I think 3 out of 5 sets should be banned even in the men's game they go for 2 long.

terjw
Jun 8th, 2008, 01:58 AM
I can't really comment on those matches since I didn't see them, but if the players had a lot of problems then it was probably because they weren't used to playing 5 sets. I don't think there's any physical reason why women would be less able to play 5 sets than men. Again, this isn't an issue of strength, it's an issue of endurance. I don't know of any reason to believe that women have less endurance than men do. Also, 3 matches isn't really enough to draw any conclusions from.

By the way, did you actually see the other 5 set matches, or just the Graf vs. Hingis one? The Seles vs. Sabatini one definitely looks like it would have been interesting.

No I just saw that Graf vs Hingis match. That was the first one I saw - and that was enough for me - never wanted to see that again. You may think that's not enough to draw any conclusions. But you asked why did they abandon it and go for 3-setters and I think - there's your answer.

We see enough of injuries anyway with just 3-setters and players playing fewer tournament than they did in 96. So there is even more likelihood nowadays with the injuries players get that if the match goes to 5 sets we'd get a repeat of that '96 match

Oswald56
Jun 8th, 2008, 03:07 AM
Both men and women should play best of three for first week and best of five for second week of slam.

lowdowndirty
Jun 8th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Safina said she was exhausted after this match, so I'm wondering how she'd have coped with five setters?

tequila
Jun 8th, 2008, 04:32 AM
Only if you want more players to get injured, exhausted, tire of tennis, and retire earlier.

AnomyBC
Jun 8th, 2008, 04:40 AM
Only if you want more players to get injured, exhausted, tire of tennis, and retire earlier.

I think you guys are really going overboard with the whole idea of injuries and early retirements. Like I said, it would be a maximum of four 5 set matches a year. 99.9% of the players would go the whole year without playing one. Also, if players prepared for the possibility of 5 set matches by doing more endurance training it could actually reduce the number of injuries in regular 2 out of 3 set matches.

Malva
Jun 8th, 2008, 04:40 AM
The women's game is not like that!!

no

The women's game is not like that?

Well, it wasn't... some time ago.

Today women favor power over finesse, they are very big, very tall, scream, shriek, hit the ball as hard as they can, and earn as much as men.

Why not to make them work as hard?

AnomyBC
Jun 8th, 2008, 04:48 AM
Both men and women should play best of three for first week and best of five for second week of slam.

I think that would be a good way of doing it, but I think you need to take many intermediate steps before achieving that. The first step would be for one of the four Grand Slam tournaments to change the women's final to 3 out of 5 sets. Then if the matches are high quality and entertaining the other major tournaments should do the same thing. Then after that they can consider things like making the women's semi-finals 3 out of 5, or making the men's first round 2 out of 3.

cocco80
Jun 8th, 2008, 06:05 AM
The women's game is not like that?

Well, it wasn't... some time ago.

Today women favor power over finesse, they are very big, very tall, scream, shriek, hit the ball as hard as they can, and earn as much as men.

Why not to make them work as hard?

Malva, that would mean that some of the girls, like Aga, couldn't keep it up with the rest. Do you really want that to happen?

Malva
Jun 8th, 2008, 06:20 AM
Malva, that would mean that some of the girls, like Aga, couldn't keep it up with the rest. Do you really want that to happen?

In terms of shear power, even now she cannot... ;)

But, realistically, bigger girls like, say, Safina, may be actually much more tested if they need to play 5-setters. The same in men's tennis. Some of the best 5 set specialists are far from being the biggest guys. Longer matches test endurance and technique and economy of shots, not shear power.

I don't think it would be possible to hit the ball very hard all the time in a 5 set match. So, surprise, surprise... 3-out-of-5 set matches are likely to favor technique over power. Thus, players like Agnieszka, may have actually better chances.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Jun 8th, 2008, 06:25 AM
Absolutely, not just finals, all the matches should be best of 5 sets, to be fair, if the girls have complained for EQUAL pay, they should be willing to play EQUAL matches.

Its too easy for the women, and in my opinion there would be so much more excitement and the players would learn and develop more with longer matches.

The women offered to play best of five sets at the slams as far back as the 1970's! They deserve equal pay for drawing butts in the seats (although I've paid to see men's tennis, I've paid much more to see women's), and if the powers that be don't want them to play more games and sets, that's not their fault in the argument for equal pay.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Jun 8th, 2008, 06:28 AM
Both men and women should play best of three for first week and best of five for second week of slam.

I disagree. I like the men playing best of five in the grand slams for all rounds. Although, the more that men get used to playing best of 3 in the non slam tourney's, I see it harder and harder for them to maintain their fitness levels for the longer matches. A real shame. I so enjoyed the marathons of yesterday.

lympyisthebest
Jun 8th, 2008, 06:40 AM
Good arguments for both sides. I personally would like to see them play 5 sets, but i'm not fussed about it.

What i would like happen is the USO getting rid of final set tiebreaks.

Malva
Jun 8th, 2008, 06:57 AM
Good arguments for both sides. I personally would like to see them play 5 sets, but i'm not fussed about it.

What i would like happen is the USO getting rid of final set tiebreaks.

Yes, I find that to be a disgrace. Like a penalty shootout deciding who becomes World Champion in Football.

kittyking
Jun 8th, 2008, 07:00 AM
I think you should make both women and men play best of 3 sets for the whole season including grandslams. Ive watched a number of Masters events and they are often more exciting than mens matches at Grand Slams, despite playing only best of 3 sets. Also it would give more credibility to equal pay.

Michael!
Jun 8th, 2008, 07:04 AM
I think it would be a great idea to play the GS finals over 5 sets ;)
It was always great at the Masters final, remember that great match from Anke and Steffi :hearts: