PDA

View Full Version : Why Don't Women Play Best of Five in Finals?


NashaMasha
Jun 1st, 2012, 04:59 AM
Nowadays, when women are earning same prize money as men and fighting for all-around equality they seem to simply underperform for this money

This year we had only one really entertaining final in WTA tour(Na-Sharapova) and a plenty of finals which looked so poor, that they were hardly watchable

I believe that playing best 3 of 5 will make final winners less random. Women are often a headcase and not often can bring their best tennis from the beginning of the first set. In ATP there are pretty much matches starting with 0-2 in sets and finishing 3-2 just because losing player adjusted his game to the opponents. In women tennis it hardly happens that often. For instance in the first set players had petty even game, reached tiebreak and one of them lost it. Very often she will lose 1-2-3 games in 2nd set just because she is still emotionally overcoming her 1st set loss. If she plays 3of 5 women will have more chances to overcome any accidental losses and will often add some drama to women matches.

I know that the main drawback of the 5-setters will be that women can't endure such long matches, but if 5sets will be only finals at Slams it won't be a great problem

perseus2006
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:05 AM
The women are much too smart to play Best of Five.

Did you know that most of the ATP wants to change to Best of Three?

NashaMasha
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:10 AM
Did you know that most of the ATP wants to change to Best of Three?

gain same money for working less will be always prevailing

But neither Federer nor Nadal will support it , i mean whose opinion really matters
Federer considers that "Best Of Five Sets Should Return To Masters' Finals, for instance and Nadal feels calm and more confident at 3of 5 matches

Stonerpova
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:11 AM
These days WTA players can't produce two quality sets of tennis in finals, let alone five :lol:

NashaMasha
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:17 AM
These days WTA players can't produce two quality sets of tennis in finals, let alone five :lol:

as usual, in WTA three setters are more quality matches than the matches finishing in 2 sets . Girls have enough power to play 3-4 sets now for sure

Sam Stosur at Charleston played about 4,5 sets in Charleston in one day this year(if i am not mistaken)

I would've been really pissed, if i had payed for ticket and attended this year WTA finals in Australian Open or Indian Wells or even USO 2011

Stonerpova
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:22 AM
as usual, in WTA three setters are more quality matches than the matches finishing in 2 sets . Girls have enough power to play 3-4 sets now for sure

Sam Stosur at Charleston played about 4,5 sets in Charleston in one day this year(if i am not mistaken)

I would've been really pissed, if i had payed for ticket and attended this year WTA finals in Australian Open or Indian Wells or even USO 2011

That kind of highlights my point :shrug:

stromatolite
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:25 AM
There are players like Sam Stosur who could probably play 7 best of 5 matches if required, but I have my doubts whether most of them could even finish one in a dignified way if it went the distance. More often than not the players that reach women's slam finals win most of their matches in 2 routine sets. If suddenly forced to play 5+ hours in the final it could get very ugly.

lefty24
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:26 AM
Then it would be all about endurance since its a lot easier for guys to play best of 5. Not to mention equal prize Money shouldn't be about the top players anyways.

SilverPersian
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:30 AM
I don't think that a lack of endurance is a real reason for stopping women from playing five set matches. Many of the women on tour might find it physically challenging right now, but only because they haven't been training to last for five set matches. Women used to be banned from competing in athletic events longer than 800m at the Olympics because they were thought to be too fragile. Same BS imo.

NashaMasha
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:30 AM
Then it would be all about endurance since its a lot easier for guys to play best of 5. Not to mention equal prize Money shouldn't be about the top players anyways.

men are playing 7 matches in a row best of five during the same timeframe , I offer for WTA to make finals best of five (with tiebreak in 5th set)

2 set finals are often not worth those interest of public as it should be

WonderfulLee
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:54 AM
i just can't imagine watching 5 sets of sharapova and azarenka screaming on my tv. :help:

JackFrost
Jun 1st, 2012, 05:55 AM
Longer matches are not nessesary better matches.

NashaMasha
Jun 1st, 2012, 06:14 AM
Longer matches are not nessesary better matches.
let's make one set matches , if the shorter -the better

:lol:

I don't think that we need 54-minute finals or 1h11minute finals

sxeraserhead
Jun 1st, 2012, 06:17 AM
This is probably the only way Wozniacki would win a slam.

imjongh
Jun 1st, 2012, 06:20 AM
i think 3 sets are enough.

NashaMasha
Jun 1st, 2012, 06:21 AM
This is probably the only way Wozniacki would win a slam.

No , she won't reach the final to play 3 of 5

Grigorpova
Jun 1st, 2012, 06:29 AM
That means getting fitter and I can't think of many women players who are that fit to play a five setter in good form.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jun 1st, 2012, 06:35 AM
3 set R1-R4 for men and women, 5 set QF-F for men and women. Final set TB across the remaining venues(AO/FO/Wim,) to balance things about a bit, despite the novelty of having these ridiculous 12-10 scorelines.

Alternately just 3 sets for everyone, period. I think the quality of men's matches would go up a little, as there wouldn't be tanking to conserve energy for the next set which tends to happen during slams.

JackFrost
Jun 1st, 2012, 06:36 AM
let's make one set matches , if the shorter -the better

:lol:

I don't think that we need 54-minute finals or 1h11minute finals
All I wanted to say is, that a match don´t have to get nessesary better, if you extent it. :shrug:
You shouldn´t confuse quantity with quality.

jj74
Jun 1st, 2012, 09:04 AM
I don't understand why people insist on this.
Wta needs more quality in GS finals, most of recent years finals on slams were one sided crap fests. So i don't think we need one more set of one sided tennis.
We need more emotion, more tight finals, more good tennis, no more sets. In fact i remember when they played the masters final in five sets and that wasn't exactly the highlight of the year.

The problem right now is that most players have a very similar game, so the player who is slightly better that day won the match very easy, because most players don't have a B plan to use when things don't go well. Wta needs more different styles if they want to bring new viewers. Just like atp, Nadal, Federer and Nole have different styles of game, and their matches usually are a lot more competitive

C. Drone
Jun 1st, 2012, 09:10 AM
5-6 hour finals just as much "cons" as 1 hour finals.

Do anyone remembers first 4 sets of 5 setter men matches?

I dont think making it a never ending endurance contest is the way.

Mistress of Evil
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:08 AM
As if anyone has the time or the patience to go through 5 sets of brainless grinding à la AO 2012 men's final. :weirdo:

Viktymise
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:29 AM
Because best of five is pointless.

Marlene
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:33 AM
I'd kinda like to see how it would turn out with best-of-5 matches in slams, however in a modified format with sets going to 4 instead of 6 games. There can be a lot of ups and downs and mini-comebacks in 2-sets matches that aren't necessarily evident from the final score. I think it would have a positive effect on headcasing if the players could bank a set at 4 games instead of self-destructing and blowing a 5-games lead. I doubt that it'll ever happen, but I'm just curious about how it would work.

duhcity
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:37 AM
It would completely change the style of the game. Grinders will prevail. I'd rather not.

Tennis_News
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:37 AM
For me, five set matches can get boring after a while. Isn't the whole point of tennis these days to make it more exciting and fan-friendly in order to draw in more people. This would definitely be a step in the wrong direction.

The Dawntreader
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:37 AM
5 set matches are such a shameful exercise in tanking sets to prepare for deciders that they are scarcely even credible in the men's game, and would be completely awful in the women's.

I don't know why people are so desperate for the WTA to be like the ATP. Like the latter is any better at all.

Juju Nostalgique
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:41 AM
5 sets in all rounds of a Slam is crap IMO. Look at Isner's match yesterday, 18-16... :rolleyes: Imagine that you have to watch a 3+ hours tennis match. :spit: :help:

But I think that women's Slam and YEC finals should be 5-sets. And also on men's side. Just finals of big events. I remember some YEC finals in the nineties and some were really entertaining. :yeah:

gc-spurs
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:45 AM
So have women train for best of 3s and chuck in a best of 5 final at the end? Change the rules at the endpoint when players have gotten there through best of 3s? No.

NashaMasha
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:53 AM
Because best of five is pointless.

sure sure ... its much better to watch how some girls are starting to play their best tennis in the second part of second set , warming up in the first and thus losing the match

What is more , people who are buying tickets come to watch tennis , not the scoreboard. Ugly, not ugly tennis, but at least some drama and rallies on the court and not 6-4 6-2 in 1 hour

I do want matches like 4-6,4-6,6-3,6-3,6-3.(Michel Chang -Ivan Lendl) , otherwise women tennis will never be competitive with ATP

5 set matches are such a shameful exercise in tanking sets to prepare for deciders that they are scarcely even credible in the men's game, and would be completely awful in the women's.

just decrease number of games in a set to 5-5 or 4-4 , all sets will be competitive



So have women train for best of 3s and chuck in a best of 5 final at the end? Change the rules at the endpoint when players have gotten there through best of 3s? No.

Men are playing for all season 2of 3 and at slams 3 of 5 , previously at Masters men were playign finals best of 5

Morrissey
Jun 1st, 2012, 10:56 AM
Well back in the 1980s and 1990s the year in championships had a five set final. Monica Seles and Gabriela Sabatini played an incredible five set match back in 1990 so women are capable of doing it. I agree with the OP the women say they want to be treated with respect like the men. So, why don't the women prove it by competing in a five set grand slam finals? I think the women's events should be five sets from the first round just like the men. The women bitch and complain about equality and equal pay then they should DO EQUAL WORK!

GoDominique
Jun 1st, 2012, 11:01 AM
:zzz:

SymphonyX
Jun 1st, 2012, 12:27 PM
If women played 5 setters then only Serena and Sharapova would be winning. :oh:

Tennis Fool
Jun 1st, 2012, 12:28 PM
:facepalm: Same topic comes up every Slam.

Cosmic Voices
Jun 1st, 2012, 12:33 PM
If it was:

rena/clijsters
lena d/henin
empress/rena
masha/empress


or w/e then ofc that would amazing.

but the rest of the wta can't even play two decent sets of tennis let alone 3-5
even masha would fuck herself over :hysteric:

also imagine the ufe of a 5 setter between li na vs. masha :help:

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jun 1st, 2012, 01:43 PM
If it was:

rena/clijsters
lena d/henin
empress/rena
masha/empress


or w/e then ofc that would amazing.

but the rest of the wta can't even play two decent sets of tennis let alone 3-5
even masha would fuck herself over :hysteric:

also imagine the ufe of a 5 setter between li na vs. masha :help:

:lol:

garson
Jun 3rd, 2012, 02:44 AM
:facepalm: Same topic comes up every Slam.

Somehow people have been wondering about it more since the equal prize money was enacted few years ago. Some people are against the idea while some support the idea. I am trying to think if there are other sports where women play less than men. I know that there is no American football for women in general in the US. Baseball is not widely practiced either. Still, when women play sports, I can't think of one on top of my head where women play less in tennis grand slam. Someone can definitely correct and enlighten me.:)

In my opinion, women's best of five sets would be happening in the future. People are going to argue about it now more and more. Equality in prize money should go along with equality in effort or play. While some people argue that it's unhealthy for women to play best of five, is it really healthy for men in general to play that amount? Best of five sets in men's have been somewhat of a norm for the sake of spectators possibly. Someone can enlighten me on this one.

Also, tiebreak should be instituted IF both men and women play best of five set matches. Although, Isner's kind of match does not happen all the time, grand slam officials should consider health, time, place, etc. or at least in the early rounds when there are lots of matches needing to be played. They can let more plays going on in later rounds and put a limit somewhere if it goes on and on.

fifty-fifty
Jun 3rd, 2012, 02:50 AM
Because it makes no sense to make boring matches even longer

garson
Jun 3rd, 2012, 03:02 AM
Because it makes no sense to make boring matches even longer

Are you saying that the 2012 Australian Open men's final (Novak vs Rafa) is boring? Or you're generally think best of five set matches are too long?

Potato
Jun 3rd, 2012, 03:16 AM
Doesn't really matter, the girls flopping in finals already have a shitload of money from endorsements, etc. Final money and even wins are honestly negligible in the long run to them.

Potato
Jun 3rd, 2012, 03:17 AM
Are you saying that the 2012 Australian Open men's final (Novak vs Rafa) is boring? Or you're generally think best of five set matches are too long?

Some can be extremely exciting and enthralling. But there have been plenty of mugfest 5 set matches on the WTA level, which are compoundedly annoying because of the length.

debopero
Jun 3rd, 2012, 03:27 AM
Is there any solid reason to assume that women can not handle best of five set matches? Obviously there are some players who would not be fit enough, but there are such players on the men's tour as well. In other sports, (soccer, basketball, etc.) women play for as long as men do, and they don't drop to their knees at the end of the game grasping for air.

Frankly though, I see no reason why men shouldn't play best of three :shrug: .

Wiggly
Jun 3rd, 2012, 03:44 AM
Women tennis would become a push fest.
The fifth set quality would horrendous.

Nadal vs Djokovic isn't exciting. It's the same rally over again with about half the match's duration being about Nadal picking his butt.

ServeCaspian
Jun 3rd, 2012, 03:54 AM
This equal prize money thing always gets me, at the time of asking WTA had been in a far superior state than ATP for a decade or more. Obviously we were going to have a lull but it's improved this year. We'll see what shape the ATP is in once Fed decides to retire and Nadal and Nole are past it. Which is only 5 years or so away.

hobahobaspirit
Jun 3rd, 2012, 04:16 AM
I can already picture the random scores :lol: 6-1 0-6 6-2 1-6 9-7

Wiggly
Jun 3rd, 2012, 04:40 AM
This equal prize money thing always gets me, at the time of asking WTA had been in a far superior state than ATP for a decade or more. Obviously we were going to have a lull but it's improved this year. We'll see what shape the ATP is in once Fed decides to retire and Nadal and Nole are past it. Which is only 5 years or so away.

When the women have better ratings, nobody ever say a word.

It was pathetic back in January. The two finals were very different but Clijsters/Li was more exciting and had higher ratings than Djokovic/Murray the year before. Nobody offered them to pay them more.

Start da Game
Jun 3rd, 2012, 04:57 AM
the entire women's tennis format should be changed to best of 1 set with a first-to-10-games set.....

flyingmachine
Jun 3rd, 2012, 05:33 AM
Well back in the 1980s and 1990s the year in championships had a five set final. Monica Seles and Gabriela Sabatini played an incredible five set match back in 1990 so women are capable of doing it. I agree with the OP the women say they want to be treated with respect like the men. So, why don't the women prove it by competing in a five set grand slam finals? I think the women's events should be five sets from the first round just like the men. The women bitch and complain about equality and equal pay then they should DO EQUAL WORK!

+1
At least at the second week of a GS they should start to played best of 5.
I'm sure they will be fine. ;)