Why the Best-of-Five Format Should Be Standard in Men's Tennis

Tennis aficionados relish the ebb and flow of the game—the spins, turns, tosses, and pure athleticism of its competitors. However, those of us who are traditionalists when it comes to the court of kings love tennis the old-fashioned way. 

Although we support the modern game, including its flashy Hawkeye technology, secretly we do not trust it. 

We gasp when someone today unfolds a game built on serve and volley. We drone on endlessly about great players of the past who also thrilled us with their superlative skills. 

While we would not go so far as to subscribe to wooden rackets and natural gut as opposed to synthetically stringed precision instruments, we have one universal cry of discontent. 

Men are supposed to play the best three out of five sets in tennis!

Would we allow college or pro basketball to change by playing half of a game and then calling it quits because a full game wears out the players? Would we support playing half of a football game just so we could watch two games instead of one? 

There would be a universal uproar, maybe even riots breaking out, if the boys upstairs proposed that as a condition for a television network deal.

The best two out of three sets in tennis is the women’s game!

There, I said it; now start bombarding me with the sexist label! 

The five-set format is an entirely different contest than the three-set format. It is like the difference between running a mile and running 200 meters. The psychology and the strategy are miles apart. 

Conditioning looms as a huge factor, as well as reflex, intuition, courage, will, determination, and mental acumen. 

Think of all the great five-set matches we have seen throughout the years—like Borg vs. McEnroe at Wimbledon, 1980; Stefan Edberg vs. Boris Becker at Wimbledon, 1990; Goran Ivanisevic vs. Pat Rafter at Wimbledon, 2001; Mats Wilander vs. Ivan Lendl at the U.S. Open, 1988; or Rafael Nadal vs. Roger Federer at Wimbledon, 2008. 

The list goes on and on. These represent our classic tennis match ups—where our legends emerged and folklore took flight.

We live to tell our sons and daughters we witnessed these heroic struggles in the wee hours of the morning on television or sitting proudly in the bleachers. 

Right now, as it stands, only the Davis Cup and Grand Slam events require the best-three-of-five format. Every other, including the vaunted Masters Series Events, is relegated to the best two of three. 

This is a travesty...especially regarding the Masters Events—those that lead up to the eventual year-end championship round-robin tournament with the best eight players.

If you consider the 2009 Australian Open, just completed, as an example of how important the five-set format is, consider the following:

In the first round, six winners would have lost their matches if they had been playing the best two out of three, including Gilles Muller, who eventually defeated Feliciano Lopez, and Taylor Dent, who would have sent Amer Delic packing. 

Both of these eventual winners progressed substantially into the next rounds.

In the second round, five outcomes would have been reversed, including the match between Mario Ancic and Ivo Karlovic. Instead of Mario progressing, Ivo would have won the second-round match. David Nalbandian would have been victorious over Lu Yen-Hsun. 

Once again, Amer Delic would not have survived his contest with Paul Henri Mathieu or Back Home Again, Pt. 2!

More importantly, in the third round the result of the thrilling match between Richard Gasquet and Fernando Gonzalez would have been reversed, with Gasquet the victor. 

Roger Federer would never have survived his match with Tomas Berdych in the fourth round to play in the Aussie final because the match would have been over after he lost the first two sets. 

Also, Andy Murray would have survived Verdasco, and he would have played Nadal in the semis. Who’s to say that Murray may not have changed the outcome in that semifinal contest?

The thrilling Federer vs. Nadal final would have been blunted and so much great tennis would have been lost. 

Twenty-two matches were taken to five sets. Fourteen of the 22 would have altered the results and changed the complexion of the tournament had the Aussie Open employed the best-of-three format. 

Tennis traditionalists rued the day when the ATP decided to move to a three-set format for the Masters Series Events, including finals. It was a reduction—a pandering to the media who wanted tennis to be faster so it could fit within their pre-determined schedules. 

It minimizes the game and changes the psyche of players. It does not allow a player to mature and improve within a match. 

When you review Federer’s match against Tomas Berdych, you observe how Federer grew into the match, ultimately able to summon his conditioning and his superior mental strength to overcome Berdych, who faded in the end.

Players condition and train to sustain their playing abilities for five sets. Those that master this are the ones left playing in the finals of majors—most often Federer and Nadal. There is a reason for that. 

The truly seismic contests are fought for five long sets of grueling but often spectacular tennis, where fans are engaged and players are summoning every ounce of strength to spin the ball one more time over the net or hit that final overhead, placing it just out of reach of the man who just skidded across the baseline in his attempt to return it.

That, my friends, is mano-a-mano tennis as it was meant to be played for five sets. Let the best man win!