PDA

View Full Version : 5 Sets


cool bird
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:36 PM
I want to know why women do not play five sets in grand slam and end of year finals and SF and all fed cup matches. They are all fit and strong and should all be able to last for the best of 3-5 set match.
In my mind women want equal prize money for wimbledom and the french. but they do not do the same amount of work as the men and so in all of the slams the men should get more prize money then them.

I think most tennis fans would enjoy the women to play a best of 5 sets. And cant uderstand the reason for it in the SF and final.

And here how i think a best of 5 sets would have helped for better matches this year.

The Aussie open
Venus and Serena I think would have gone to 5 sets this year (best of five would help to bring out the best tennis out of them both)

The french
Kim was starting to get over her nervos in the second set so would have been ready to play her real game in the third it may have made too little to late but least you would of seen a set of good tennis.

Wimbledon
The only place where i think 5 sets would hinder the match becuses of the injury. So i will go to the year before and please see the reaso i put for aussie open.

US OPEN
please see french

So not only do people get there money worth and there would be no more 40 mins grandslam final. But it makes for much better tennis matches. more chance of classic matches and better come backs :bounce:
SO PLEASE IF ANY ONE FROM THE WTA IS READING THIS TAKE NOTE

AjdeNate!
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:39 PM
I think the Tour Champs should be best of 5 like it used to be.

shap_half
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:41 PM
What would have happened to Hingis at the Australian Open final if she had to play best of out of five sets against Capriati!!???

Venus Forever
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:41 PM
I think both the men and women should be best of three from the First Round to the Fourth Round, then Best of Five for the both of them from the Quarterfinals on.

great smash
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:42 PM
I'd rather say no, because women are physically not able to play many 5 set matches.
I wouldn't mind if indeed it returned for the Championships final, as it would make that match different from all other again.

However in the years best of 5 matches were played in the Championships finals only once in history was the winner different from the one that would have won looking only at the scores of the first 3 sets!

ToeTag
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:44 PM
I'd like to see some b/5 as well...even if it was changed to 4 games instead of 6,which the tour experimented with a while back at a minor tournament.

cool bird
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:45 PM
thats a good idea venus forever

wongqks
Oct 18th, 2003, 11:45 PM
I think the final for grand slam and year end champ should be five sets, but that's it

Fyndh0rnElf
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:01 AM
Are you insane? They barely can play through a 3set match. In 5 sets the quality of the tennis would be so bad we would all be sick of tennis forever. If the WTA girls get any fitter or stronger they will turn into freaks

vogus
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:02 AM
If you think about it, the women have a pretty good deal right now at Wimby and FO. They get like 98% of the prize money that the men get, while playing only best of three and spending half the amount of time on court as the men. So it would seem not really worth it for them to start playing best of 5 sets, just for that last little 2% increase in money. Or at the AO and USO, where the money is already equal, why would the women want to do more work for the same money? I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but nobody in the WTA is going to favor it.

Princess Fiona
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:18 AM
I used to like the five set match at the Year End Championships but I can understand why it isn't around any more... It's at the end of a pretty hard season - the players are tired, very tired indeed!! It would be nice to see a five set match somewhere in the season though... :)

Martian Willow
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:22 AM
...the only good thing about playing five sets would be to wipe out the argument about prize money...that's not the reason the women get less...but it's brought up all the time and gets in the way...I don't think it would improve the tennis though...I do like VeNuS FoReVeRs' idea though...five set semis' and finals (with a tie break in the fifth, maybe) would be interesting... :)

Jericho
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:36 AM
Or how about best of 3 no tiebreaks in any set, would that make a difference?
Does anyone have a list of women's matches that were best of 5?

Brian Stewart
Oct 19th, 2003, 01:00 AM
I say a resounding no. For the year-end finale, maybe, but other than that, no. I say the reverse; that they should reduce the men's matches to best of 3. There are almost no 5 set matches that include 5 great sets of tennis. There are few that include 5 close sets, and that is usually because the serve dominates.

And the argument that the men do more work because they play best of 5 is a complete fallacy. It's built upon the extremely faulty premise that all sets are equal, and that sets are the measure of work. "Work" in tennis isn't accurately measured by the number of sets played, or number of games, or even number of points. Nor is it measured by time spent on court. It's measured by the actually playing of the points.

I'll give an example. Player A plays 3 points. He serves 3 aces, each of which take about a second. Add in the 25 seconds between points (of which the men typically use the full allotment) , and he's on court a total of 53 seconds from the start of the first point to the conclusion of the 3rd. Player B plays one point, which involves a rally. Let's assume it takes just under 20 seconds total (about 17-18). Player A has played 3 times as many points. He's been on court 3 times as long. Has he done 3 times the work? No, because his total actual work was 3 seconds. Player B has actually worked about 6 times as much.

Granted, such an example is a bit extreme. But the general point holds. Players who have to work harder for their points are working harder than those who tend to win more points outright with the serve. And I think everyone will agree that women get very few quick points as a rule, where there tend to be many more of them on the men's side. Statistics show that the serve is becoming increasingly dominant in the men's game, including a higher incidence of tiebreaks reached without a single service break.

What this underscores is that there is a difference between the sets being played, rendering a direct comparison on the basis of # of sets (or games) played invalid. It's like comparing Joe, who spent 5 hours at his office, with Bob, who spent 3 hours at his. Who did more work? You don't know, until you actually look at what they did. If Bob is industrious, and Joe is lazy, Bob could easily do more work.

That's been the case with tennis through the years. The last time I examined a full Wimbledon field, I compared the two main draws (men's and women's singles) on the basis of actual work done. The media were using the AELTC's stats of # of sets and games played as the basis of saying that the men were doing the lion's share of the work, and that the women should consider themselves fortunate to be getting what they are. But, on closer (and more accurate) inspection, it turned out that the men, despite all of the extra sets and games they played, did only about 40% of the total work. And this was in a year with a higher than usual number of 5 set men's matches, and a lower than usual # of women's 3 set matches.

What it boils down to is the mentality of the players. Those who play best of 5 sets have developed a BO5 mentality. You see a lot of "energy conservation" in those matches. Players will do anything from tanking return games, either after securing a break, or going down 30-0 early, by just slapping at their returns, to tanking entire sets (extremely common in the old days). Players tend to not give their all on every single point, or in every single game, or in some extremes, even in every single set.
The women have the BO3 mentality. They tend to put 100% into every single point. Thus, they are putting more work into each set, each game, each point. This makes for more entertaining points, and more entertaining tennis. If they (slams) would change the men to best of 3, they would be packing the same amount of tennis they now play over 3-4 hours into less than 2 hours. Much more "bang for the buck" for viewers. This would only add to the appeal of tennis.

So, I'm opposed to BO5 matches on principle. I don't want to see the women switch to BO5, which doesn't give you more great matches, but instead, for every quality BO5 match, there are dozens of dull ones that are at least 50% longer than they need to be.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 19th, 2003, 01:01 AM
One thing I've never understood is why the grrls seem to find it tougher to play five sets than the guys. It's a matter of endurance, not strength. Usually you'd expect women to have more endurance than men, not less. Cf marathon swimming, etc.

I think that both sexes should have the same format, whether it means the women playing some five-set matches, the men playing fewer five-set matches in slams, whatever it takes.

bandabou
Oct 19th, 2003, 01:01 AM
Best of 3 no tiebreaks is a good idea...better than best of 5. That way one could see better quality of tennis over a longer period.

Best of 5 doesnt really work....remember Hingis getting bageled at will and cramping against Graf?!

Ballbuster
Oct 19th, 2003, 01:03 AM
3 sets!

5 sets is too stupid!

The women are already breaking down as this thread is created.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 19th, 2003, 01:05 AM
Hmmmm, nice post from Brian Stewart. I'm not totally convinced, since it doesn't match my intuitive sense of the difference between the way the men's and women's games are played, but it does provide some material for thought and suggest an answer to my question. Rep points on the way.

Havok
Oct 19th, 2003, 01:25 AM
only the finals of the really big events. i mean women's tennis is for the most part ugly as it is, full of many errors, do you really want to stretch it out to 5 sets for a whole tournament?

Scotso
Oct 19th, 2003, 01:31 AM
No, but the WTA Champs final should be.

Kart
Oct 19th, 2003, 02:01 AM
I remember once watching an interview with Martina N where she was saying that she reckoned a lot of the women would be willing to play five sets.

I was thinking NO then and I still feel the same way. I don't think they are fit enough generally and I think we'd sacrifice quality for quantity.

Still, I suppose we'd see a lot more upsets as some of the top players would probably succumb to a lack of fitness on occasion.

I don't mind seeing the occasional five set match though - I always thought it was nice to see the YEC final as a five set match before they changed it.

GoDominique
Oct 19th, 2003, 02:08 AM
It doesn't make any sense to let women play best of 5 at slams from round 1 on. The top-players usually have cakewalks there, so 2 sets of that is enough. And I wouldn't be interested in long 5-setters of the weaker players either.

The final in Los Angeles - yes, please !
GS finals - why not ?

Gowza
Oct 19th, 2003, 02:22 AM
it shouldn't be best of 3 to the 4th round and then best of 5 after that because then in the long run the players that make it past the 4th round always have an advantage in their fitness over the rest of the field which would widen the already big gap between the top players and everyone else.

ToeTag
Oct 19th, 2003, 03:05 AM
only the finals of the really big events. i mean women's tennis is for the most part ugly as it is, full of many errors, do you really want to stretch it out to 5 sets for a whole tournament?
:lol: Yeah,Dokic's matches are FULL of errors.

X-Lurker
Oct 19th, 2003, 03:30 AM
The women are already breaking down, everybody is either exhausted or injured.

Best of 5 would invite a lot more EPO-style doping.

rhz
Oct 19th, 2003, 08:38 AM
I think Women should play 5 setters in YEC SF and F
Grand Slams QF onwards
Final of Tier Is

I think that should cover enough for fans who love the 5 setters!

azza
Oct 19th, 2003, 08:41 AM
No coz JHH will get cramps..

7~LV3
Oct 19th, 2003, 10:38 AM
What would have happened to Hingis at the Australian Open final if she had to play best of out of five sets against Capriati!!???

I think that last year the final was payed outdoors, meaning that the roof wasnt closed then... the heat was unbearable...
This year they played under a closed roof...

I think that they should play only in the finals of the Grandslams and YEC... i think it would be nice. cuz theres some matches that goes 7-6 7-5 6-4.. i think those matches are really close and either one could end up winning, so I guess those extra sets would be for the person who wants the title more...

azza
Oct 19th, 2003, 11:52 AM
bump..

CamilleVidann
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:01 PM
It's a total joke that the women have to play best of five setters. They would be worn out and we would see even more injuires and thus more withdrawals. I would think the williams sistaz would play only the GSs then.

CamilleVidann
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:05 PM
azza badrepped me for my previous post. I don't see any harm in it. She must be some kinda psycho. Keep the read blocks coming folks.

Darran
Oct 19th, 2003, 12:35 PM
I'd love to see best of 5, however scheduling in grand slam events would be a nightmare if it was done from the 1st round. The tournaments would last about 3 weeks.

Experimentee
Oct 19th, 2003, 04:05 PM
Best of 5 sets is boring for the most part, from my experience with watching mens tennis. Longer does not always mean better. I'd rather see a short, high quality match 2 hr match than a long boring 4 hr match. Best of 3 is more exciting as each set and consequently each game is so much more important. In best of 5 sets, players can afford to play bad for one set then catch up later, but not so for best of 3.

Experimentee
Oct 19th, 2003, 04:09 PM
Great post Brian Stewart, i agree 100%.

nubienne954
Oct 19th, 2003, 04:19 PM
I think the Slam finals should be five sets as well as the YEC.
And I am so surprised at the number of no votes here and how many people mention stamina.
I thought the current number 1 had enough stamina to go five when she won the U S Open...
Is it just that the WS would continue to dominate even 5 set matches that everyone is so against them?