2 out of 3 in Men’s Slam Play?


I have seen a number of columns pop up discussing the possibility of switching Grand Slam play to 2 out of 3 sets for men.  Here are two of them:

Billie Jean King’s take and Drew Franklin’s take

First, I Disagree

Having  tournament of 2 out of 3 sets matches with a day off between matches would make Grand Slams easier than regular tour events in terms of physical conditioning.  That alone is counter-intuitive.  Beyond that how many classic 5 set matches would be lost in this trade-off?  Wimbledon 2008 would have been a routine 6-4, 6-4 win for Rafael Nadal rather than perhaps being the greatest match ever.  Federer would have beaten Roddick 5-7, 7-6, 7-6 in 2009.  Jimmy Connors would have meekly bowed out of the 1991 US Open rather than ignite the tournament.  Agassi would have been beaten soundly by Medvedev at the 1999 French Open.  Goran Ivanisevic and Patrick Rafter’s 2001 classic would have never happened either.

2 out of 3 sets worked at the Olympics last year.  It works at the Masters 1000 events.  I think the slams have to be different.  The 2012 Australian Open final was to my mind the most brutal and greatest match that I have ever seen.  I’d hate to lose the ultimate test as a trade-off for television scheduling concerns.

If It Has to Happen

I do not see this happening anytime soon if ever.  However, if it does have to happen, why not give seeded players an advantage.  If two unseeded players play before the round of 16 or quarterfinal round, it could be a 2 out of 3 set match.  If a seeded player wins 2 of the first 3 sets versus an unseeded player prior to the round of 16 or quarterfinal round, the match ends.  However, the unseeded player has to win 3 out of 5 sets to upset a seeded player regardless of round.  The kicker is that the number of seeded players could be cut back to 16 or even 8.  This would make the race for ranking points outside of the slams more important as well.

Anyway, I don’t think it should happen.  I don’t see it happening.  However, if something is to be done, moves must be taken to protect the 5 set classics that have helped tennis enjoy a lot of popularity over the past 5-10 years.  If such moves simultaneously made the race for ranking points more important, so much the better.


5 Comments Add yours

  1. Ben says:

    The fact that this is even a discussion is absurd to me. I understand wanting to switch all the slams to 5th set tiebreaker but 2 out of 3 sets? You cannot be serious.

    Don’t you think the slams are easier for women and one of the reasons Serena has been so good at coming back? Extra day of rest does wonders.

    1. Dan Martin says:

      I agree 100%. The draw and pressure of winning one of the most prestigious events are the only aspects of women’s slams harder than average tour events. I think men’s tennis would be beyond foolish to go to 2 out of 3.

      1. cindy says:

        Equal pay for equal work. Pay women less or they go five sets like the men

  2. jane says:

    I love best of 5!! Stop the insanity and let’s not go there!

    I think going to a 5th set tiebreak is a decent idea – it’s stop (we can hope) mad and infamous matches like Isner/Mahut, but it would allow for 5th set drama still.

  3. jane says:

    I can’t type today – “it *would* stop….”

    BTW, I am *for* making women’s matches at slams best of 5. Most definitely. At the very least, from the quarters onward, or even just the finals! It would make it more exciting and fitness would come into play, not to mention tactics. I think it would make women’s finals so much more interesting if they were best of 5.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s