The Debate Between Best-of-5 and Best-of-3 at the Grand Slams
As the shortened year draws to a close and predictions start being made about what is in store for 2021, the debate over three-set vs. five-set matches has slowly rekindled during the recently concluded ATP finals, with players like Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic being asked their opinions on a proposed format change. While Nadal remains a staunch traditionalist, claiming that winning a Grand Slam in the current day and age requires a player to be “stronger mentally, stronger physically, be solid for such a long time and for such a long two weeks”, Djokovic takes a different stance, arguing that he is “a proponent of best-of-3 sets everywhere” due to the unrivaled length of the tennis season and the large number of tournaments that players participate in for 11 months of the year. While there is not even the slightest indication that Grand Slams will ever move to best-of-3 for the men, there are valid points to be made for each side, so let’s have at it.
Tradition
Perhaps in no other sport is tradition so entrenched than it is in tennis, and this tradition most visibly exposes itself every June on the hallowed lawns of the All England Club. The strawberries and cream, the polite applause after every point, the Royal Box hosting the Queen each year, players sporting their pearly white threads, the list goes on and on. It is precisely due to this tradition that Wimbledon objectively holds the most prestige among tennis players, tennis fans, and the greater sporting world in general. Putting Wimbledon’s unique traditions aside, tradition is ingrained in the sport regardless of where it is being played. The awkward/sometimes hilarious ballkid mannerisms, the incessant towel wipes, the hushed crowd during tense rallies, is something that we all see no matter the Grand Slam event. But even looking past these idiosyncrasies, tennis has largely been immune to sweeping change ever since its formation as a sport, especially with regards to its unique scoring system. It is due to this resistance that the world was able to witness the dramatic Wimbledon trilogy between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal from 2006–2008. It is hard to imagine the 2008 Wimbledon final, which is hailed by many as the greatest match of all time, being played as a best-of-3 match. If it were the case, Nadal would have won it in straight sets and the tennis world would have been robbed of a once-in-a-lifetime dramatic thriller. The same can be said for matches such as the 2012 Australian Open final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, the 2019 Wimbledon final between Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer, and many more Grand Slam matches that have etched their place in the history books simply because they exhibited enormous level of play and an unparalleled sense of drama and emotion that simply would not have taken place had those matches been best-of-3 sets. It is because of these matches that the three legends of the game today have made their mark on the sport for at least the century to come.
Injuries
When Djokovic argued for best-of-3 sets everywhere, a big reason for his support was because of the grueling season that tennis players face every year. Starting from the first week in January in Australia to ending the season in mid-November, tennis players get roughly a little over a month to recover from the previous season and start physical preparations for the season to come. As fit as these athletes are, they are still human, and this constant cycle ultimately ends up taking its toll. Nobody is affected more than the top players who consistently make the latter rounds of tournaments, and therefore log more matches under their belts over a period of time. In the last 5 years alone:
- Roger Federer has had two knee surgeries for which he has missed over 1.5 years of competition.
- Rafael Nadal has had to cut his season short in both 2016 and 2018 due to injury, along with a foot surgery in 2018
- Novak Djokovic did not play in 2017 after Wimbledon due to elbow injury, which later required surgery in early 2018
- Andy Murray has had two hip operations, one in 2018 and a metal hip replacement in 2019, from which he hasn’t been able to return to his 100% form that saw him reach World #1
- Stan Wawrinka had to cut his 2017 season short due to knee injury, which required two surgeries, and has yet to crack the top 10 again
It is no secret that injuries have taken a toll on players’ bodies. Also put in the fact that two of the four Grand Slams are played on hard courts, which are unmistakably the most punishing surface for the hips and knees, along with the fact that with today’s racket technology and superior athlete conditioning offer longer and more lung-busting rallies, and it becomes no secret as to why the debate for best-of-3 has some merit. The game has become very physical compared to the tennis played just 25–30 years ago, with players hugging the baseline rather than charging the net, and with the vast majority of this coming on the hard courts it is easy to tell why multiple top 10 players have been marred with injuries. On one side of the coin, potentially shorter matches would reduce the wear-and-tear on players’ bodies in earlier rounds, saving their energy and bodies for later rounds, and this point is no better seen than by Alexander Zverev in the 2018 French Open and Rafael Nadal at the 2018 US Open. Zverev, after a routine first round match, had to wrestle away three consecutive five-set matches before being decimated by Dominic Thiem in the QFs, in large part due to built-up fatigue. Nadal’s experiences were largely similar in that he had to withstand arduous 4-set tussles in the 3rd and 4th rounds before the brutally physical 5 set encounter with Dominic Thiem, only to reach the semis and retire hurt. In doing so, Nadal proved two opposing but equally valid points at the same exact time: that while Grand Slam matches are meant to be the ultimate battles of attrition and mental fortitude, these types of long matches no longer make sense when the game has evolved to such a physical state.
Tennis as a Product
It is hard to imagine a casual fan watching a 4 hour tennis match, no matter how good the quality of tennis might be. Yes, ultimately the matches that live on in tennis fans’ hearts are the ones that have gone the distance, but if tennis is to make inroads into the fanbase to include millennials and Gen-Z, then watching matches that are potentially 4–5 hours long is not really the best way to capture their interest. A hard-fought best of 3 tussle, which would last around 2.5–3 hours at maximum, is something that could potentially keep eyes glued to the TV for the duration of the match. With the advent of social media, it is increasingly common to note the slowly dwindling attention spans of the younger generation as they are exposed to an enormous amount of information in their everyday lives that they sift through in order to get the content they want, something that older generations did not experience growing up. If tennis is to evolve, it is not out of the question to consider shortening the Grand Slams to best-of-3, especially since for casual fans, the Grand Slams are the events that are broadcasted on large network carriers such as ESPN and NBC sports. If the sport is to increase its popularity, it would be to increase the amount of people tuning in at the slams.
Singles and Doubles
Granted, it is not common to see the top players play doubles even at non-Slam events, but shortening singles matches to best-of-3 could allow the top players more rest and recovery to be able to exert into other disciplines such as doubles and mixed doubles. Recently, on Gael Monfils’ Twitch live chat with Andy Murray, Murray noted that while he as a player loves best-of-5 due to the challenges it presents to players and how it rewards players who train harder, he thinks switching the format to best-of-3 would allow more players to enter the doubles draw and increase viewership in disciplines that quite frankly are not followed as much as men’s singles and women’s singles.
What is the solution?
While there is no sign that the Grand Slams will move to best-of-5 anytime soon, it is important to note that some changes have already happened in the last 15 years. ATP Masters 1000 finals and the year end championship match are no longer best-of-5, they are now best-of-3. The Olympic Games recently changed their rules to do away with best-of-5 championship matches, and starting in Tokyo 2021 will strictly be best-of-3. It is quite possible that the next 15 years may bring about increased chatter on this debate, but the vast majority of players themselves seem to prefer best-of-5 sets rather than best-of-3 at the slams. The biggest gripe seems to be the lack of rest at the season’s end, which is understandable given how short it is and how it doesn’t give the body ample time to recover. An intriguing idea that would partially satisfy both ends of the debate would be to have the men play best-of-3 from Round 1 — Round 4, and then play best-of-5 in the final rounds. This would help players expend less energy in the earlier rounds while keeping their reserves full for the latter stages of the tournament, hopefully producing some epic clashes. The small problem here is that if the established top players — the ones whose ticket sales and media/tournament presence bring in revenue — start to be eliminated early from tournaments, there would be increased calls to go back to the old format.
How many would they win?
Given the differing opinions that players have expressed, it’s interesting to see how the Grand Slam counts for Federer (20), Nadal (20), and Djokovic (17) would change if matches were retroactively made best-of-3 rather than best-of-5. Here are the Grand Slams that each would have lost/won.
Federer
- lost 2009 French Open (down 2–0 against Haas 4R, down 2–1 against Del Potro SF)
- won 2009 US Open (up 2–1 against Del Potro F)
- lost 2012 Wimbledon (down 2–0 against Benneteau 3R)
Nadal
- lost 2010 Wimbledon (down 2–1 against Haase 2R, down 2–1 against Petzchner 3R)
- lost 2011 French Open (down 2–1 against Isner 1R)
Djokovic
- lost 2011 US Open (down 2–0 against Federer SF)
- lost 2012 Australian Open (down 2–1 against Murray SF)
- lost 2014 Wimbledon (down 2–1 against Cilic QF)
- lost 2015 Wimbledon (down 2–0 against Anderson 4R)
- lost 2020 Australian Open (down 2–1 against Thiem F)
It is very interesting to note that of these 3 players, Djokovic is the biggest supporter of transitioning the Slams to a best-of-3 format, yet he would be the one who has the most to lose as evidenced by all the slams he has won after being down at least 2–1 at some point during the tournament. With these tallies, the final counts would be Federer at 19, Nadal at 18, and Djokovic all the way down at 12.
