Tennis Forum banner

21 - 40 of 65 Posts

·
La nuit je mens
Joined
·
89,859 Posts
And can the IBM stats computer even process the numbers of UEs that a Bo5 sets between Keys and Dodin would get. This would crash some data centers around the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thetennisutopian

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,729 Posts
The WTA is always full of upsets because the format of Bo3 make all top players vulnerables. It's simple.

Fedalovic would never have been Fedalovic if GS on ATP were on Bo3. Djokovic would have just lost to Musetti for exemple and would have lost against Federer at the USO SF 2011 and against Kevin Anderson at Wimbledon 2015.
Nadal is invincible at RG because of the Bo5. I doubt he would have won 13 FO (and maybe 14) if he was playing on Bo3. Djokerer would have scored multiples wins against him IMO.
Well said.. this has been my speech for centuries. Best-Of-5 protects the top players
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
The WTA is always full of upsets because the format of Bo3 make all top players vulnerables. It's simple.

Fedalovic would never have been Fedalovic if GS on ATP were on Bo3. Djokovic would have just lost to Musetti for exemple and would have lost against Federer at the USO SF 2011 and against Kevin Anderson at Wimbledon 2015.
Nadal is invincible at RG because of the Bo5. I doubt he would have won 13 FO (and maybe 14) if he was playing on Bo3. Djokerer would have scored multiples wins against him IMO.

Serena and Sharapova would have won IMO 30 GS and 10 GS because on Bo5, even if the rest of their game is off, are the strongest mentally and would outlast their opponents like Fedalovic did it.
Serena was the only consistent because she possessed a super weapon to bail out her matches : her serve. The others doesn't have this luxury

If the top player play slightly worst and if her opponent play slightly better, the match can be over. It's more easy to have the mindset of peaking for two sets than for three sets.

Ostapenko would never have won the FO 2017 if it was the Bo5 because she would never be able to maintain her low% game for 5 sets. Halep would have outlasted in the final (and maybe she would even not beating Baczinski).
It's even possible than Barty and Muguruza could have outlasted Kenin on Bo5 at the AO 2020.


WTA is not ATP and will never be like ATP because of the lack of a Bo5 format.
Up until a player like Zverev recently started a successful run at Masters 1000 events (partly due to the fact the Big 3 aren't as committed to them as they used to be), the Big 3 (Big 4 in Murray's peak years) used to clean up all the Masters events. Every. Single. One. They were as dominant in the Masters as they were in the slams. Nadal for example would be just as successful at tournaments like Rome and Monte Carlo as the French Open if he didn't treat them more as tune-up events for his assault on the French Open. The problem with dethroning the Big 3 is less a problem of the format and more the fact that even if you can successfully surmount the test of 1 of them, there's almost always at least another one of them lying in wait - such is their freakish consistency of application.

And I doubt Serena would have 30 titles in BO5. It would hit her career longevity if she had to be playing BO5. Any chance she's had of winning a slam post-pregnancy relies on the less physically tasking format of the BO3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Up until a player like Zverev recently started a successful run at Masters 1000 events (partly due to the fact the Big 3 aren't as committed to them as they used to be), the Big 3 (Big 4 in Murray's peak years) used to clean up all the Masters events. Every. Single. One. They were as dominant in the Masters as they were in the slams. Nadal for example would be just as successful at tournaments like Rome and Monte Carlo as the French Open if he didn't treat them more as tune-up events for his assault on the French Open. The problem with dethroning the Big 3 is less a problem of the format and more the fact that even if you can successfully surmount the test of 1 of them, there's almost always at least another one of them lying in wait - such is their freakish consistency of application.

And I doubt Serena would have 30 titles in BO5. It would hit her career longevity if she had to be playing BO5. Any chance she's had of winning a slam post-pregnancy relies on the less physically tasking format of the BO3.
No way. Peak Serena was always destroying the players with 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 scores and one set more wouldn't have been different. The contrary is Serena would have been ever MORE invincible on Bo5. Her serve/ROS combo, her GOAT mental, her huge power on Bo5 would be absolutely impossible to handle, and you know that. Bo5 would have protected Serena even more on her bad days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,729 Posts
And what's the point ? Play even 10 sets until the top player wins over the challenger ? This is ridiculous.
Anyway it's impossible to schedule a slam with both men and women Bof5 unless you expand its duration hurting the pre slams other tournaments or having something like 30 courts or play at night ??
And just imagine with raining days in R1/R2 the nightmare it would be for the organizers.
As suggested by many, everyone could play Bo3 in week1, and Bo5 in week2. There is always a solution
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
No way. Peak Serena was always destroying the players with 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 scores and one set more wouldn't have been different. The contrary is Serena would have been ever MORE invincible on Bo5. Her serve/ROS combo, her GOAT mental, her huge power on Bo5 would be absolutely impossible to handle, and you know that. Bo5 would have protected Serena even more on her bad days.
I didn't say she'd be less likely to win a match that is BO5. I said Serena playing BO5 would affect her longevity. One of the reasons for Serena's longevity is her less intense scheduling and the long breaks she's had over the course of her career due to injury or just not giving a shit. I mean, Serena has played far less matches in her career than Nadal and Djokovic who are almost 5 and almost 6 years younger than she is respectively. The disparity would be even greater if she had to be pounding the courts for BO5 matches. BO5 would be more physically tasking and probably make her more injury prone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
only for grand slams and year ending championships semi final and final instead first to 6 games wins the set make it first to 9 still bo3 both singles and doubles
 

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
21,957 Posts
this is just speculation.

though more likely true to increase consistency than not, would the women's game actually benefit overall? consistency of the top is only one criteria to good tennis matches.

introducing bo5 will introduce a lot of other problems. for example, it's possible some players would try even LESS at Wta Tour events to better prep for GS which certainly is much WORSE for the tour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Katerina and Molok

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,387 Posts
WTA is not ATP and will never be like ATP because of the lack of a Bo5 format.
Look man......this point you are making is academic.....this is not going to change. Reading through here @Sphrontanascier made an excellent point....that the "Big 3" have dominated the Masters 1000 events on ATP in best of three sets....so I am not even sure WHAT point you are trying to make beyond the obvious difference in bold above. It's not new, it's not going to change.....so thanks Capt. Obvious......and do you know where I can get a good deal on a hotel? I mean maybe you can provide some USEFUL information here anyway:rolleyes:

The men and women's game is different.....who knew? it's like my girls used to say when they were kids....."Girls go to Mars to get more bars....boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider." By the way.....I watch the guys too, but I am a MUCH bigger fan of the women's game BECAUSE there is no "Big 3"......the depth in the ladies game is MUCH higher than 20-30 years ago and suprise winners in my view are great for the game. Cheers.
 

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
21,957 Posts
let me revise the thread title

The real reason WTA has survived is because of maintaining Bo3 format in GS ITF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dodge

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,932 Posts
Fedalovic would never have been Fedalovic if GS on ATP were on Bo3. Djokovic would have just lost to Musetti for exemple..
I get the idea behind this, but it’s based on a lot of presumptions and I just don’t think it’s that simple. We are just assuming that Musetti would have closed out the match exactly how he closed out the second set, but the pressures would have been completely different. A set point in a 5 set match and a match point in a 3 set match are not the same thing. And it’s impossible to say how Musetti (or Djokovic) would have handled it differently.

5 set matches tend to go the way of the player who won 2 of the first 3 sets, just like if they were playing a 3 setter. For example out of the 115 men’s matches at this RG so far, only 7 of them have been come from 2-0 or 2-1 to win matches (and 3 of these were by retirement). Meaning the 5 set format has been pointless for 93% of the time.

I hate to sound like Ben Rothenberg, but there actually is a very good argument for getting rid of 5 setters in the majors. I’d like it to remain personally, but I understand the argument behind it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,222 Posts
As suggested by many, everyone could play Bo3 in week1, and Bo5 in week2. There is always a solution
With Swiatek already the only top 10 player this year on the QF sure this would have change things 😂
Who would want to watch Zidensek/Krejcikova for 4 hours :LOL:
Top players are already protected with the 32 seeding rule and imagine that it was planned to rule back to 16 seeds only but then abandonned after precisely the top players protests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
WTA is not ATP and will never be like ATP because of the lack of a Bo5 format.
Uninterrupted from 1968 to about 2011 there were always several all-time greats competing at the same time - Court, King, Goolagong, Evert, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Graf, Sanchez, Seles, Hingis, V. Williams, S. Williams, Henin, Clijsters.
And until 2016 we had at least Serena.

From then on no great player anymore. That is the reason for those random slam winners. And not the Bo3 format.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,369 Posts
Uh no, that is just based on the assumption that the ATP big 3 would still lose those same matches if it was Bo3. Obviously, being the greats that they are, they'd probably adjust their games accordingly so they don't lose two sets in a Bo3 match.

Nadal isn't magically gonna be less successful at RG just because the format is Bo3 instead of Bo5. If the rules are different, then their game plan will be different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,111 Posts
Best of 5 would decimate the field.

The last 4 rounds of every Slam would be full of walkovers and retirements. The winners and top ranked players would never be the best, but simply the luckiest/healthiest. This is an incredibly dumb idea.
 
21 - 40 of 65 Posts
Top